Re: [libreoffice-users] Working on an archive site/pages for LO and the DVD[s] I have been working with

On 07/10/2011, webmaster for Kracked Press Productions
<webmaster@krackedpress.com> wrote:
> I have had the idea for a few months now, so I figured it was time to
> start working on it.

Why?

> "most stable" will be describing 3.4.x versions.  So maybe not using
> that phrase would be better for marketing.
>
> http://libreoffice-na.us/multi-version/install.html

Having reviewed the above web site:

The third line of the title refers to an American project. The project
should be explained in terms of history, purpose and objectives.

Subsequent paragraphs are vague.

Let us pose the question; why are two software versions promoted? This
is wrong. To avoid confusion, only 33 versions should be visible. In a
second page, e.g. explaining support, reference should be made to the
concept of users helping others via mailing lists and that for future
development, quality software testers required for future versions. It
is at this point that the use of version 34 is announced for this
purpose. For testers, suggested test environments should be explained;
e.g. a dual boot of the same gnu/linux operating system, one with
LO33, the other system with beta test versions such as the current
LO34.

The web page states m$ on numerous occasions. Not a single reference
to ODF! This is fundamentally wrong. What is the purpose of LO, to be
a m$ clone, or provide an alternative method of creating documents? Do
you want programmers to be wasting their time endlessly reverse
engineering m$ formats for "compatibility", or spending that precious
time developing the performance of odf formats. Remember, the
objective is an increase, a proliferation, of odf documents. The
objective is not an increase in m$ formats created/edited/distributed
using LO.

The web page does not promote a single feature _and_ benefit of using
LO. Being able to perpetuate m$ formats is of no benefit to LO or ODF.
An example that could have been promoted: "LO makes extensive use of
'styles', to enable documents to be created simply and quickly, whilst
format of text is controlled in a consistent manner.".

If LO33 is stable, why try and state that LO34 is also stable??? There
is an implication that LO33 is claimed to be the final product, but
really the programmers don't want a stable product to be used, they
want people to use a buggy LO34 version and report bugs instead of
actually using LO to create odf documents.

Paragraph 5 is even more worrying. It forgets that ideally, users
would be able to create documents with a stable product that does not
need upgrading every week.

-- 
For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+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/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted