Re: Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Fw: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Is 3.5.4 ready for business users?

["Charles-H.Schulz" <charles.schulz@documentfoundation.org>]

There is indeed a difference. Please list the bugs (as entered in
Bugzilla) for, say, the 3.5.0 and the 3.4.5. And then tell me about the
difference between these two.  There are even two possible answers to
it. One is mathematical, "i.e this release has 35 bugs, the other one
has 27." This one is just a measurements, as you never can tell for sure
you uncovered all the bugs, but let's just use what we have. The other
one is what the perception is about the bugginess of the release. This
one is generally the one that matters in the sense that it's the
perception and the users' feedback that may or may not give the
impression that one release is buggier than another. Right now I
understand you are expressing the feedback of users about bugs and
accuse TDF members of lying because there are "more bugs" than in the
3.x.x release. So do you have the list of bugs for this release , and
would you be able to compare it with the 3.x.x release's bug list?
Further down the road, do you happen to have the list of bugs squashed
for the 3.5.4, and what does that tell you in terms of ratio with the
number of bugs known at the time of the 3.5.4 release? Unless you are
able to provide this kind of data , I'm afraid you're "all hat and no
cattle", as they say in Texas, and you could continue to call people
liars but you will not sound reasonable at all. I look forward your data
(not your rants), and I suggest we move to more constructive topics.

Thanks,

Charles. 


Le lundi 04 juin 2012 à 13:47 +0100, Tom Davies a écrit :
> Hi :)
> Is there any difference between 
> 1.  Having a lot of bugs 
> 2.  Having only a few bugs
> 
> Think about it Charles.  I know it's difficult for you but lets try to take this 1 step at a time so you might understand it.
> Regards from
> Tom :)  
> 
> 
> --- On Mon, 4/6/12, Charles-H.Schulz <charles.schulz@documentfoundation.org> wrote:
> 
> From: Charles-H.Schulz <charles.schulz@documentfoundation.org>
> Subject: Re: Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Fw: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Is 3.5.4 ready for business users?
> To: marketing@global.libreoffice.org
> Date: Monday, 4 June, 2012, 13:14
> 
> Hello Ramon,
> 
> Le lundi 04 juin 2012 à 10:33 +0200, Ramon Sole a écrit :
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I don't know if marketing people in LO is lying or they are just too 
> > enthusistic, but I feel -as Tom- I can't be confident when they tell a 
> > new version is "Business Ready". I can expect that from a propietary 
> > vendor, but not from an community open source project, so maybe we have 
> > a problem in TDF -as a community project-.
> > 
> > Don't blame Tom for express their opinion. Everything he has written has 
> > a very good sense from a business point of view. I, as a professional 
> > deploying LO and OO, would like too to have FAITHFUL information about 
> > the new features, bugs and regressions a new version introduces without 
> > having to test everything by myself.
> 
> New features, existing (i.e already known) bugs or regressions are
> listed in our release notes. Unknown bugs are... unknown until
> discovered. If you don't expect to test everything by yourself, then who
> do you expect will test "everything"? Again, that sounds like what is
> expected is a bug-free release where the QA team has "tested"
> everything. We have test cases, and processes, but I can assure you that
> if there was a system where anyone could produce a bug-free release, we
> would use it. But it does not exist, and there is no bug-free release
> anyway. 
> 
> > 
> > Tom didn't complaint about the bugs. He complained about the 
> > misinformation marketing people gave us about the new versions. I think 
> > it would much more intelligent listening at what Tom is telling to LO 
> > responsibles than trying to justify than any software is inherently buggy.
> 
> I would love to understand what Tom is saying, because so far what he is
> saying does not make any sense. If he points out the need to clarify
> between the two branches, let's have that discussion here, that seems
> useful. If there's a "misinformation", then please point to what sort of
> misinformation there was and let's see if there's a misunderstanding or
> inaccuracies. But if this "misinformation" is that there were bugs, then
> please don't bother: there have been bugs, there will be bugs, there are
> bugs. Obviously we must fix these bugs, and we would love to have these
> bugs reported before we can fix them otherwise we can't. If you heard
> "bug-free" inside "business-ready" then I think there's no
> misinformation, there's only a misrepresentation caused by the belief
> that software can actually be bug-free.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Charles.
> 
> > 
> > Best Greetings
> > 
> > Ramon
> > 
> > Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
> > > Tom,
> > >
> > > I don't feel accusing people of lying is going to be very constructive. if
> > > anything you are displaying worrying signs of your complete ignorance  in
> > > basic software development and it's so basic you don't need to be a
> > > developer. So let me put this in very clear terms for you: SOFTWARE IS
> > > BUGGY. IT WILL ALWAYS BE BUGGY. And yes, open source software is all about
> > > telling everyone about identified bugs or potential bugs. Even in a stable
> > > release. Why? BECAUSE SOFTWARE IS BUGGY. Even proprietary software. It's
> > > always the case. So what happens with asking about our two branches and
> > > which one is the most stable? For one thing having two branches tends to be
> > > the rule in software development world, not the exception. Vendors or
> > > projects may not always label them that way, but having a maintenance
> > > branch and the "up-to-date" branch is the usual method out there. The
> > > up-to-date branch builds on top of the maintenance branch (i.e includes
> > > bugfixes and security related patches) while introducing new features.
> > > Introducing new features usually leads to new bugs, and sometimes even
> > > regressions. New bugs, because, did I ever mention this? SOFTWARE HAS BUGS.
> > > Therefore, the new branch will have new, and often unnoticed bugs. That's
> > > the way it works. We don't tell lies, but 3.5.4 will have more bugs
> > > squashed than the 3.5.0 , but the 3.5.0 will have in theory more bugs
> > > squashed than, say, the 3.4.3 (the release that was before the new branch
> > > was released). The 3.5.x is thus not a developer branch at all, but for
> > > users (i.e. corporations) looking for certainty, you may indeed want to
> > > push for their adoption of, say, a 3.4.6 or a 3.5.4 . That's how it works.
> > > Remember: the 3.5.0 is stable, regular people can use it everyday just
> > > fine, but you know what? SOFTWARE HAS BUGS. Some of these users may be
> > > disgruntled. It's the way it works. Have you talked to disgruntled MS
> > > Office users? They complain about bugs too. We all do. So please, don't
> > > crosspost to the universe about the blatant lies of TDF officials when
> > > somebody squawks about a bug; report the bugs, or have the user become a
> > > bug reporter and that will actually be helpful.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Charles.
> > >
> > > 2012/6/3 Tom Davies<tomdavies04@yahoo.co.uk>
> > >
> > >> Hi :)
> > >> Many people are willing and even enjoy testing and trying out the latest
> > >> newest version especially if that means they get to play with new
> > >> features.  There are so many of them they even have names such as "early
> > >> adopters".  We need to attract more of them!!
> > >>
> > >> Those people are not looking for stability.  They are looking for fresh
> > >> and exciting or just trying to stay ahead of the game and see what is
> > >> coming up next.
> > >>
> > >> Sell those new early releases using those aspects  as the way of promoting
> > >> them.
> > >>
> > >> If you blatantly lie and tell people that the new branch is "stable" then
> > >> those ear4ly-adopters  lose interest and go elsewhere, to other projects
> > >> that ARE doing new and exciting things AND telling people about it.
> > >>
> > >> At the same time, by claiming that the latest new thing IS your most
> > >> stable version then if/when they find regressions they wont bother looking
> > >> at previous versions.  After all you have just told them there is no
> > >> version more stable than the one they have been given and therefore any
> > >> problems are NEW bugs.  So, they walk away to find other products that do
> > >> have the functionality they are looking for and just tell people they know
> > >> that LO is just not ready yet.
> > >>
> > >> In almost all cases that got as far as the Users List those blockers were
> > >> solved by simply getting them to try the 3.4.6 release.  The one that
> > >> didn't have all the regressions you would expect from a new and exciting
> > >> branch.
> > >>
> > >> I seem to be explaining this really badly.  If i say it 1 way around
> > >> people think i am a jerk because of course i should expect regressions in
> > >> the latest software.  But what if i don't want the latest?  What if i want
> > >> something solid and reliable?
> > >>
> > >> The official website has been telling people  that 3.5.0 and so on where
> > >> the most reliable when they weren't!!  If it told them instead that they
> > >> were getting the ultra-latest then they might be happier about accepting
> > >> regressions and perhaps looking back for a more stable version.  If they
> > >> are told it IS the most stable version then WHY would they look?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Now there is a question on the User List asking if the  3.5.4 is stable
> > >> and ready for corporate use.  NO-ONE can TRUSTS the official TDF line, as
> > >> repeated by Italo, because it has been used so many times before and then
> > >> found to be false in so many cases.  Which part of this line is true this
> > >> time and which part is a lie this time?  "3.5.x is stable, although there
> > >> are some regressions".  The 1st part tells us that it is ready for
> > >> corporate usage, the 2nd part contradicts that.
> > >>
> > >> However the whole discussion can be avoided by actually telling the truth
> > >> instead of lying about it and then trying to cover-up the lie.  Sell the
> > >> product on what really ARE its good points (ok, and stretch it a little as
> > >> every marketing department for every product probably does).
> > >>
> > >> Regards from
> > >> Tom :)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --- On Sun, 3/6/12, Italo Vignoli<italo.vignoli@gmail.com>  wrote:
> > >>
> > >> From: Italo Vignoli<italo.vignoli@gmail.com>
> > >> Subject: Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Fw: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Is
> > >> 3.5.4 ready for business users?
> > >> To: marketing@global.libreoffice.org
> > >> Date: Sunday, 3 June, 2012, 11:07
> > >>
> > >> 3.5.x is stable, although there are some regressions which impact on
> > >> some users. Of course, this is not implying that 3.5.x is perfect, and
> > >> we will never have a perfect software as bugs and regressions are part
> > >> of the process especially when you are developing new features on a 20
> > >> years old code base.
> > >>
> > >> Unfortunately, as it is the case for proprietary software as well, the
> > >> only way to check if bugs and regressions impact your usage patterns is
> > >> to install the software and start using it.
> > >>
> > >> Tom Davies wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi :) The 3.5.0 was blatantly not ready for business use and was not
> > >>> stable, as we saw from the number of problems people had on the
> > >>> lists, problems that were often solved by going back to 3.4.x.  It
> > >>> was absurd to claim that 3.5.0 or 3.5.1 or 3.5.2 were stable.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Italo Vignoli - italo.vignoli@gmail.com
> > >> mob +39.348.5653829 - VoIP 5316436@messagenet.it
> > >> skype italovignoli - gtalk italo.vignoli@gmail.com
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to marketing+help@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/marketing/
> > >> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be
> > >> deleted
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to marketing+help@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/marketing/
> > >> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be
> > >> deleted
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Charles-H. Schulz
> Co-Founder & Director, The Document Foundation,
> Zimmerstr. 69, 10117 Berlin, Germany
> Rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
> Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to marketing+help@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/marketing/
> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
> 
> 


-- 
Charles-H. Schulz
Co-Founder & Director, The Document Foundation,
Zimmerstr. 69, 10117 Berlin, Germany
Rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint




-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to marketing+help@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/marketing/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted