Re: [libreoffice-users] 4.0.3

Paul <paulsteyn1 -AT- afrihost.co.za>
Sat, 27 Jul 2013 12:30:53 +0200

Hi Amit,

While your CV is impressive, this is still just your opinion. For open
source software, it seems that this isn't true. "Release early and
release often" is a mantra that is oft repeated; it seems that several
open source projects have found this to be the most effective way of
keeping interest from dying down.

Actually, by now we should have been done by all the software

Hardly likely, given the speed and amount of innovation occuring in
software, hardware and OSes.

We need to beat Microsoft because we do not want to pay for Office
suite.

Well, this is hardly the reason the open source community are striving
for alternatives. It may be the main reason for some people (and I'll
admit I am one of them. I couldn't afford to stay in business if I had
to pay Microsoft's prices for every little piece of software I used),
but there are other equally (some would say more) important reasons.
Like competition promotes innovation, and standards are a good thing.

The best way of doing this is to release stable versions only

As stated above, I don't think this is true. Stable versions *are*
released, if people wish to stick to them, but newer versions are also
released so that people can adopt them early if they wish for newer
features. This does mean people are implicitly accepting that there may
be a few bugs still left around. And this is actuall a *part* of the QA
process. With open source software the consumer is part of the process,
rather than just someone that gets the end product and complains loudly
if things don't work, and perhaps doesn't pay.

THERE IS NO DEMAND FROM CUSTOMERS FOR FREQUENT RELEASES

I don't know where you have worked, but the customers where I have
worked were always expecting things ASAP, and sooner if possible :)
And in open source, again, there are no paying customers. The customers
are simply the users, and they often do want frequent releases. Though
you are right, not all of them do.

Just some of my thoughts.

Regards

Paul


On Sat, 27 Jul 2013 15:21:58 +0530
Amit Choudhary <contact.amit.choudhary.india@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Tom,

I have been programming since 1987. I have all my degrees in computer
science/networking. I have worked for companies like Cisco systems,
Juniper networks and have turned down offers from companies like
Google and Microsoft for one reason or other.

This whole software industry is going in the wrong direction.
Actually, by now we should have been done by all the software (all
the necessary software developed and installed and used, no bugs, etc.

We need to beat Microsoft because we do not want to pay for Office
suite.

The best way of doing this is to release stable versions only and
this can be done by increasing the QA cycle period.

I do not release buggy software unless it has been approved by
management. And I have not released any software that's gonna hurt
the customer even if I have to get into discussions with managers,
directors, etc.

This whole idea of releasing software frequently is a scam, because
work doesn't get done properly in a small time window. No one gets
any time for innovation and everyone is just interested in the
release. And in the end, the software dies down because the frequent
release does not fix things properly and introduces new bugs and over
time all these quickfixes kill the product.

THERE IS NO DEMAND FROM CUSTOMERS FOR FREQUENT RELEASES. THE DEMAND
IS FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE SOFTWARE ANALYSTS AND THEY WANT SOMETHING TO
DO AND HENCE THEY WANT FREQUENT RELEASES. IT IS A BIG SCAM.

I use around 5-6 external softwares and if everyone is releasing
something every month then it becomes a headache to me.

RELEASING ONLY TWICE A YEAR IS VERY FOOD.

THE BIGGEST RISK OF RELEASING FREQUENTLY IS THAT ORIGINAL PROBLEMS
ARE NOT SOLVED PROPERLY AND QUICKFIXES MAKE MANAGING THE SOFTWARE
COMPLICATED AND IN THE END THE DEVELOPERS GIVE UP AND THE PRODUCT IS
SHELVED.

AND ALL THIS HAPPENS WITH PAID SOFTWARE TOO.

Amit

On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Tom Davies <tomdavies04@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

Hi :)
I think with Base it's better to stay with older branches.  The
3.6.7 might be better.  if the 4.0.3 works for you then stick with
that.

Sadly there are still not many devs working on Base.  It's not
flashy enough!
Regards from
Tom :)

________________________________
From: "la10497@iperbole.bologna.it" <la10497@iperbole.bologna.it>
To: users@global.libreoffice.org
Sent: Friday, 26 July 2013, 10:31
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] 4.0.3

Unfortunately, the "3rd digit rule" doesn't work as goog as
expected...
   I use report builder in base, 4.0.3.3 version. Download 4.0.4
and
report builder no more works (crash in opening).

   thanks anyway for developers work, I remember this is a free
sw, at

the

end....

   Federico Quadri

   Tom Davies <tomdavies04@yahoo.co.uk> ha scritto:

Hi :)
  That 3rd digit is roughly the equivalent of "Service pack".  So
usually the higher it is the more stable it is.  Of course even
just bug-patches and fixes can sometimes introduce unexpected
problems that might not get caught by QA.

  The best answer, imo, is to keep a very stable version that you
are happy enough with on all the machines you look after
especially ones that have limited access or that you can't reach
easily.  Then on 1 machine find some way of being able to
test-drive an occasional beta-test versions before it gets
released.  Preferably do about 1 per branch.  The problem is
that things you might care about deeply might not even be
getting used by other people at all.  So it's only you that
might notice.  So if you didn't test-drive then the problem
might never be found.  Also it's better to do your testing on a
beta release rather than a full release because it's during the
early beta stage that the most devs are the most focussed on the
1 single version and trying to solve the most problems quickly.
Also it's when the fewest other people are making bug-reports.

  There are various ways you could make sure you have access to 1
version for use for work that has a dead-line and another version
that you can just use to try things out and make sure it all
works.

  Regards from
  Tom :)

________________________________
   From: Amit Choudhary <contact.amit.choudhary.india@gmail.com>
   To: "users@global.libreoffice.org"
<Users@global.libreoffice.org> Sent: Friday, 26 July 2013, 3:35
   Subject: [libreoffice-users] 4.0.3

   Hi,

   I was using 4.0.2 and then I downloaded 4.0.3 but 4.0.3 is
not as stable as
   4.0.2. So, now I am downloading 4.0.4.

   I am more interested in stable and feature rich (optional)
software rather
   than frequently released software.

   Stablility is very important because a non-stable software /

software

   having many bugs results in loss of time and frustartion.

   Amit


--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscribe@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

--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscribe@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



-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscribe@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

Context

[libreoffice-users] 4.0.3 · Amit Choudhary
- Re: [libreoffice-users] 4.0.3 · Tom Davies
  - Re: [libreoffice-users] 4.0.3 · la10497
    - Re: [libreoffice-users] 4.0.3 · Kracked_P_P---webmaster
    - Re: [libreoffice-users] 4.0.3 · Tom Davies
      - Re: [libreoffice-users] 4.0.3 · Amit Choudhary
        
        Re: [libreoffice-users] 4.0.3 · Paul
        
        Re: [libreoffice-users] 4.0.3 · Amit Choudhary
        
        Re: [libreoffice-users] 4.0.3 · Virgil Arrington
        Re: [libreoffice-users] 4.0.3 · Paul
        
        Re: [libreoffice-users] 4.0.3 · Amit Choudhary
        
        Re: [libreoffice-users] 4.0.3 · Amit Choudhary
        
        Re: [libreoffice-users] 4.0.3 · Paul
        
        Re: [libreoffice-users] 4.0.3 · Amit Choudhary
        Re: [libreoffice-users] 4.0.3 · Amit Choudhary
        
        Re: [libreoffice-users] 4.0.3 · Andrew Brown
        
        Re: [libreoffice-users] 4.0.3 · Amit Choudhary

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.