Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2012 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Hi Marc, Jean, *,

Marc Paré wrote (07-04-12 03:09)

There was some talk recently and, also a while ago, about the Download
page and which version(s) should be offered by default of the page. I
think we should revisit the logic of this page.

Well, there has indeed been a long and extensive discussion before and during the change of the download page.

We are presently suggesting and offering visitors to the site the
default of our "most recent version" of LibreOffice. While this is great
for larger feedback results for de-bugging it does not necessarily
present a good choice for those looking for a stable, solid and reliable
document application for their work or office deployment.

It is not said that with 3.6.0 it will be added there immediately.
Also, I have a proposal that I should work out for some time, to make a clear(er) link to release notes and release policy. And people doing deployments in production environments are considered to read those.

Although some other software packages offer their product on a release
cycle much like ours - most notably the Mozilla group - our product is
unique in that LibreOffice is in many cases used by groups or
individuals where the resulting end-user document(s) are clearly
dependent on the use of a quality-assured application. In short, an
application that does not add any formatting error to the end product.


While any deployment of LibreOffice would sensibly involve advanced
planning where the weight of using the "most recent version" as opposed
to a more seemingly "solid previous version" (this, hopefully the norm),
I do not believe that we are giving enough warning to individual users
of the risks behind using our "most recent version" as opposed to an
earlier "solid performing version". I believe that such a warning should
appear on our Download page.

I would dare to say that 3.5.x is in better shape then 3.4.x
Nevertheless, a change that makes people more aware of choices is OK, as long as it is not clumsy or misleading. So maybe it's a good idea that when the little improvements that I suggested are there, that we then again look at your suggestion below. Does that make sense as first step?

I would then propose the following minimal changes to the Download page
in order to address this issue:

Rework the sentence: "LibreOffice Linux - rpm (x86_64), version 3.5.2,
English (US). Not the version you wanted? Change System, Version or
Language" which seems to span/draw the equivalent of 2 lines on users'
monitors to:

"LibreOffice Linux - rpm (x86_64), most recent version 3.5.2, English
(US). Not the version you wanted? Change System, Previous Stable Version
or Language (Release Notes Details)" <--- the "Release Notes Details
would link to the page

This should still keep sentence to 2 lines on the users' monitors and,
at the very least, allow users time to reflect of their choice of
versions before hitting the default download buttons.

The previous discussion was simultaneously on the website-list. And when reopening the discussion, I think it is helpful to add the people active before to as cc in the mail.


 - Cor

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.