Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2023 Archives by date, by thread · List index

To put last thing first: I'm not staunchly opposed to bumping the version number to 8. So think of this as a theoretical discussion.


Noting Italo's explanation that:
> 80% (and probably more) of what we communicate is targeted to "normal" software users, and not to community members or to people with a technical background, who are already using LibreOffice.

, it seems to me that the strongest argument in favor of higher-frequency major version bumps is that it can increase media/Internet visibility for the new version somewhat, and thus likely to attract the attention of more potential new users, which is a good thing.

I find other arguments, though, to undermine this position more than buttress it.

Nigel Verity wrote:
> If I see that some software I use regularly has gone from 7.5 to 7.6, say, I wouldn't rush to upgrade

Great, what's the problem? Why should we be in a rush to get existing users to upgrade from 7.5 to 7.6? we're not failing to meet our quarterly sales targets in The Big Office Corporation (TM). It's actually better if we don't pretend it's important to upgrade to the next minor version if it isn't.

Italo Vignoli wrote:
> major releases of Microsoft Office are managed by marketing

Microsoft office is a commercial product, a commodity. And the company developing it is a vehicle for securing profits for its investors, not benefit to humanity (nor the users of office productivity suites). So, we should be at least skeptical about copying MS behavior regarding MSO in which their marketing wing is calling the shots.

Moreover - MSO versioning is kind of a mess; and even though I use MSO quite a bit (for reasons not relevant to this email) - for the life of me I can't tell what exactly changes between versions and whether I should bother to make sure and use a newer one.

> managed by marketing and not by developers

This is a false dichotomy. I'm not an LO developer; I didn't suggest the developers take over the version numbering; and I don't know that that would be a good thing. But decisions by marketers solely may also not be so great.

> marketing

about that...

LibreOffice is not a commodity. We don't exchange copies or licenses to use LibreOffice for money. And the set of people and organizations who use office suites, and the office suites they use, are not a market. _Some_ of that space is a market, but not our part (and there's also the ecosystem around LO, some of which is market-ish.) And while marketing experience is certainly useful in promoting the adoption and use of LO, there are still fundamental differences between doing that and "marketing" it. Some of them are practical (i.e. what "works" for commercial software isn't exactly what "works" for pitching LibreOffice use) but some of them are matters of principle and the kind of relationship and commitments between projects/producers/developers and users, or even non-users.

The major version number is not some sacred part of these commitments. But - like Jan Dittirch says - what would our users think of us if they had been aware that we bump version numbers as a "stimulus-evoking action" to rile up some of the "animals", and have the other "herd animals" follow? (And yes, I know those terms have not been repeated by other discussants.)

Paul Hofseth wrote:
> For Libre office number eight it might suffice to claim the usual "the changes will assure your improved experience and safety"

But it would be mostly a falsehood. I mean, any commit improves the experience of some people to some extent, but it's not true that the changes of 7.5 to 7.6 "assure your improved experience and safety". Moreover, people notice this kind of rhetoric - even non-tech-savvy newbies. And they realize that "Oh, so LibreOffice is another one of _those_ initiatives. The ones alienated and estranged from us, whose communiques must be carefully scrutinized for exaggerations and misrepresentations."

I would rather we not be that.

To unsubscribe e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
Privacy Policy:


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.