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

As the original poster of the User thread on this subject, I want to step in and give you my opinion.

Before we had a statement that the 3.3.x line was the most stable and was to be used by the businesses, while the 3.4.x line was being used as the "cutting-edge" user version. When 3.5.0 came out, the web site changed and that line became the "recommended" version from that point on. There real point is not a "lie" but how it is presented.

We need to go back to the 3.3.x and 3.4.x days when we had a version that is recommended for our business users and one that is the cutting-edge version. Right now 3.4.6 seems to be the business version, until people agree that 3.5.4, or later, is ready for these business users that cannot have some work issue with the package.

CAN we have the bug report page referenced as: "See the complete list of open most annoying bugs here." be worked on to show only the bugs that are currently still with the current version, like 3.5.4? Which bugs came into being with which version?

This is the web page that the bug link points to: <>

There are Paper Tray printing issues, change of paper size issue by LO from the one you are using, A lot of "printing issues" and others that I think need to be things that may not make it ready for business users.

Here is the question:
Which of the issues listed started with 3.5.0 and which came from the 3.4.x line and still not fixed?

The 3.4.x features page does not show a link to the bugs, while 3.5.x feature page does. To me, if I was a business user, I might think that there are no bugs [or very few] in 3.4.6, and a lot of bugs in 3.5.x, just by the simple fact that there is no place to see the bugs with one version and you can see many with the other version.

So, if there is some way we can state, like we did before, that if you are a business user, you should try version X, and if you want to try the latest "cutting-edge" version, try Y.

We really need to make it easy for our business users to know that TDF/LO cares for their needs and we are respecting their need for the most stable package we have, even if some of the "cutting-edge" features are not there. It is all well and good to get as many personal users to try and use LO, knowing there may be issues to work around, but the business users is where we also need to gear LO's web page towards.

The "recommended" test needs to be changed. That will solve many of the issues. We cannot "recommend" 3.6.0, like was done on the web site when 3.5.0 came out. That started all the problems, in my opinion. I do not think "recommending" a "x.x.0" version over a "x.x.4/5/6" version of the previous line really is a good idea for marketing.

IS LO's web site going to recommend 3.6.0 over 3.5.5, when it comes out? This was done when 3.5.0 with 3.4.5 when 3.5.0 came out. I think we need to be given the choice up front on the download page to choose the version first, instead of going to the most cutting-edge version automatically. Ask first if you want to go with the 3.4.6 version or the current 3.5.4 version. When 3.6.0 comes out, ask first if you want to try 3.6.0 or want to download 3.5.5 instead. Right now, you have to do a lot of back-tracking to get to a choice and your needed language, instead of the most cutting-edge version.

Give the users the choice of which version up front, before you go to the download page. OR, make the download page with the ability to download either version, with a description of each version.

Doing that simple thing may cause a lot of the issues to go away. LO no longer recommends the most cutting-edge version to all users, as the current download pages seems to indicate. Make it EASIER for business users to know TDF/LO cares for their needs and do not automatically tell them to use the cutting-edge version.

It is great to have a lot of personal users for LO, but if it will be a product that we are wanting businesses and governments to use, then for appearances alone, we need some change on what version we point them to.

On 06/03/2012 06:07 AM, Italo Vignoli wrote:
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.

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.