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

On 07/10/2011, Tom Davies <tomdavies04@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> As far as i can tell the 3.4.x branch has never been claimed to have
> long-term support.  Patches, updates and such are never likely to be
> back-ported to that branch.  Although that is not really an issue as LO
> doesn't seem to do updates anyway.  It's the long-term support that makes
> something "stable" and thus useful to corporate clients.

Rubbish. What is useful to businesses is a product that performs
consistently, reliably and to high quality. Per se, no business is
going to buy a product because of long-term "support" (whatever that
is) if the product is poor quality in the first instance. This is a
ludicrous claim: a broken photocopier is bought but because the
supplier offers "support", the photocopier is miraculously fixed!

> At the outset the 3.3.x branch was claimed to have long term support of up
> to 1 year from release date.  Quite what that support means in a project
> that develops so much so fast that it has no time for minor updates is
> unclear.  The 3.4.3 is claimed to be "stable" but again it's unclear what
> that means.  Perhaps LO will decide whether to use the Debian or the Ubuntu
> plan or make a new one.  At the moment it's just unclear or at least not
> obvious.

Please refer to the url where it is stated that long-term support is
provided, especially by whom.

> On the plus side it is relatively trivial to test new releases and then
> roll-out upgrades without messing-up peoples settings or even to revert back
> to previous releases if a serious problem happens.  People seldom need to be
> on the same release at the same time in order to share stuff but to create
> some things initially you might need the latest.

Nonsense. Provide evidence of a single entity where users are
encouraged to test new releases (instead of performing productive
output contributing to the entity's profits) and time involved is
accounted for as "trivial".

If a document to be created requires a feature available only in the
latest version, everyone then requires the latest version in order to
see the document as intended. Another typical contradictory sentence.

> The Ubuntu model differs from the Debian one by having strictly scheduled
> releases every 6 months.  These are it's equivalent of "Development"

There is more to gnu/linux than ubuntu.

> So, Ubuntu has a system that is clear and obvious to non-geeky corporate
> clients.  It gives them confidence in planning for the future, such as when
> to schedule a roll-out of upgrades across a large number of machines.  They
> also gain confidence knowing that if threats develop or accidents happen
> then updates will happen 'automatically' and they can rely on getting tech
> support if needed.

Rubbish. Businesses have chosen redhat (as an historic example of life
before ubuntu) because of stability and security whereby software
versions have operated in _years_ before changes are required.
Businesses also averse to automatic updates; because risk assessments
are often required to evaluate the impact of software changes,
especially where customisations have been done for specific reasons.

> Of course the flip-side, as most non-business types appreciate, is that the
> product might be better sometimes with a little more work which might take 5
> mins or might take 5 months.  Most OpenSource projects (before Ubuntu) were
> quite happy delaying releases until they were ready with the better
> product.  It's more rigorous and the product has better integrity but it is
> exactly the opposite of corporate culture and totally beyond their
> understanding.  They see it as lazy and unpredictable even tho that misses
> the point completely.  Ubuntu's answer was to 'freeze' development of each
> project at a point the product is "good enough" and then the next release
> hopefully contains the better product.

More rubbish. What business does not understand the software quality
assurance process, used in proprietary software by internal staff? Get
off ubuntu's ... and realise the gnu/linux world is far, far greater.

> The 3.4.3 is the best release to use.  I'm not sure it's appropriate to
> describe one branch as better than another for any particular reason now
> that the 3.4.3 is claimed to be stable (whatever they mean by that).
> Existing users of 3.3.0 and 3.3.1 will need to start thinking about details
> of upgrading soon as their year is almost up already.  3.3.2 and 3.3.3 need
> to start planning if they haven't already.  My plan is to sit&wait for the
> Ppa to give me a new one but i have already downloaded the 3.4.3 for both
> Windows and Debian-family (Ubuntu) and saved it to the network so i can
> upgrade if i happen to have time and access to a particular machine.  Not
> exactly a good corporate strategy and not a great plan for places that have
> a lot of machines!

LO34 is not the best to use; published bugs tell the story. Users can
use LO33 for as long as they wish, of their own volition. A user can
use LO33 in perpetuity regardless of "support".

This constant upgrade mentality of software is tiresome and
inefficient. If a user has a single, simple, basic requirement (e.g.
to write and print a club newsletter) and the hardware works for 10
years, until that hardware fails, the (open source) software can
continue to be used without upgrade.

-- 
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