Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2013 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Hi Virgil,

Just to comment on one aspect:
It appears to me as if, with LO, we users are doing the testing that
commercial companies do in-house.
Well, yes, kind of. You see, the open source world doesn't have lots of
paid developers to do this sort of testing, so it does in part rely on
the user base for this. Some of the users like being involved, some,
like you, may not. Having so many people involved does, in many people's
opinion, result in a better, more stable product faster than with
commercial software.

I honestly don't like it and I suspect that this way of doing things
will drive users away.
Unfortunately it may drive some away. There isn't much to be done about
that, I fear, given that there isn't a budget for doing all the testing
in-house, and any bugs that got missed would still be left for the user
to find, just like with commercial software. Open source is just more
up-front about admitting that the user may encounter bugs. The best we
can hope for is that those that don't want to risk bugs, and don't mind
sacrificing features, will stick to more stable versions.

And perhaps being clearer on the website will help users make that

You can't have both stability and features in one version. Either a new
version with the feature is released early, possibly with other bugs in
it, or it is released late when more bugs have been found, but then you
have to just do without it until it is released.

I do think that there should be a better way to install side-by-side
versions, such that users can easily try out the new features of a
newer release, to see if any feature they desire has been added (or any
bug they found has been fixed), without giving up the stability of their
current, stable version. A recent thread spoke of how AOO doesn't
uninstall previous versions, while LO does. I feel LO should clearly
give you the choice during the install, allowing you to simply upgrade
if you wish (removing the old version), or install next to the old
version, giving you both. Something for the devs to think about?

Just my thoughts.


On Sat, 27 Jul 2013 08:26:07 -0400
"Virgil Arrington" <> wrote:

Amit wrote:

The main problem here is that the user does not know wheher the next
release is more stable than previous one or not. And the user will
get caught in the conflict in the sense that he will think that may
be if he does not upgrade then he might be losing out on some
features. This conflict makes him try to use the new release and
then he gets frustrated. The same thing had happened to me when I

A customer can compromise on fetaures but not on stability. A stable
release with less formatting options is much more desirable than an
unstable software with lots of formatting options.

I fully agree with Amit. I'm "just" a user, not a developer. As a
user, my primary concern is knowing my program will do what I need
faithfully and without bugs. I will gladly substitute advanced
features for stability. And, it really frosts me to see a new release
resurrect bugs that had been previously fixed. Nothing feels worse
than going backwards with a program.

Until recently, like many, I was confused by the LO release cycle,
always thinking that the latest release would be the best and most
stable. But, recently, I saw the graph showing how it all works. It
appears to me as if, with LO, we users are doing the testing that
commercial companies do in-house. I honestly don't like it and I
suspect that this way of doing things will drive users away.


To unsubscribe 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.