Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: PC Magazine Comments about LibreOffice

It seems that today, someone did not have a good day.

I was referring to the author of the article that you discussed in the 
mailing list.

While I exposed items refer only to code quality, and lower occurrence 
of errors in it, you can deduce that means better software and more 
stable (there is much information on the internet about it), by so, that 
refutes the words of the author of PC Magazine.

On the other hand, I did not speak of features. MS Office does things 
that LibreOffice not and vice versa. In addition, each office suite has 
different ways of doing the same things. Overall, for my LibreOffice you 
can deliver more than the average user MS Office (assuming that the user 
is willing to re-learn some things).

At the end of the day, each user should be able to choose according to 
their needs. But this kind of of Article (regardless of their reason for 
being), I seem a bit irresponsible.

Cheers
---
BASTIÁN DÍAZ
https://telegram.me/diazbastian

El 05-11-2015 16:27, CVAlkan escribió:

> In response to Bastián and Charles:
>
> To Bastián: It isn't clear whether "author" in your reply "whimsical 
> and
> uninformed comments from the author" referred to the author of the PC
> Magazine (and this is certainly a Windows-centric publication) article 
> or
> the author of the posting (me), but no matter. I hope I'm whimsical,
> although both Mr. Mendelson (whom I've never met, by the way) and I 
> have
> been using word processors since pre-DOS days. I've been reading his 
> reviews
> and other articles since the mid-eighties. We may both be "wrong" but I
> don't really believe either of us is uninformed.
>
> I should point out, however, that your listing of "some articles with 
> facts
> showing quality and low error" all discuss 'code quality' as opposed to
> 'application quality' - often related, but not at all the same thing. 
> To
> provide a simple example, suppose that someone writes a snippet of code 
> to
> add two integers together: we can consider at least three outcomes when
> reviewing this code:
>
> 1) The code provides wrong answers, and has a significant memory leak;
> 2) The code provides correct answers, but has a significant memory 
> leak;
> 3) The code provides correct answers and any memory leaks have been
> corrected or never existed.
>
> Providing the correct answer would be a measure of 'application 
> quality',
> while avoiding memory leaks would be a measure of 'code quality.'
>
> The articles you reference deal (in my silly example) only with the 
> question
> of code quality (the memory leak). And, yes, it is generally 
> acknowledged by
> everyone that the TDF team has made enormous strides in this regard. 
> But
> this is only tangentially related to 'application quality' (which also
> includes a variety of things like "usability," "documentation,"
> "interoperability" and a host of other factors.
>
> Another thing to consider is somewhat more intangible, and descends 
> into
> what might be closer to opinion than measurement: since any reviewer 
> would
> suspect that the code described above is redundant (one would assume 
> that a
> library call to add two integers is available), the application in 
> which my
> mythical code exists might well be architecturally deficient. That may 
> or
> may not be a flaw depending on your opinion, but such things, e.g.
> unnecessary redundancy, certainly don't promote quality.
>
> But, although (as I said) I don't agree with Mr. Mendelson's
> characterization (that LibreOffice is unstable), it seems to me he is
> discussing the "correct answer" portion of the code example I give - 
> which
> is appropriate for his audience, most of whom wouldn't have the 
> foggiest
> idea what a memory leak was and wouldn't notice the effects of such a 
> thing
> until the inevitable crash. And, for many users, connecting the crash 
> to a
> specific memory leak might never happen. In fact, the articles you 
> reference
> point to the reasons why the software is more stable now than when TDF 
> began
> attacking it. As you say, there is "still much more to do" but I have 
> to
> think that the steps taken so far are/were exactly the right way to 
> begin.

--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscribe@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted