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

On 27/07/13 17:28, Ernie Kurtz wrote:
Hi Amit and Paul and . . .

I am just an ordinary user -- historian by training, academic researcher in medicine by profession.  I, and 
most with whom I work and come into contact, wish for, hope for, and strongly prefer stable releases in a 
work environment that requires interoperability with M$ products.  One difficulty:  it is not always -- in 
fact, it is rarely -- clear what is the latest "stable" release.  I use both OO and LO, and that 
seems true of both.  My wish is that the developer-types and other enthusiasts think more carefully, 
tolerantly, and generously about the technologically unsophisticated ordinary user.

Thank you.
ernie kurtz

On Jul 27, 2013, at 5:51 AM, Amit Choudhary wrote:


Hi all

I too am an end user and not a developer. From my perspective it is not at all difficult to generally keep up to date with the latest software (although the 4.1. desktop-integration thing threw me for a while). All new releases are clearly badged: don't use on production machines. So don't then. This is not the fault of the developers if people install software that is not to be used on production machines on production machines. If your sysadmin is chasing the latest releases, s/he needs to decide on stability versus the latest gizmo that may well lead to a broader instability elsewhere.

Unfortunately, MS tends to make its own products backward incompatible, forcing businesses to fork out resources chasing the upgrade cycle, or to lock in with a given OS version and the tools which work with it, and patching it up for security holes and with service packs (which also don't always work as expected!) and biding time until the licenses expire. MS is also not known for its kindly disposition towards sharing (unless, of course, its your data and remote access to your machine by the NSA), which makes it difficult for OSS developers to keep their software up to date and interoperable, exacerbated by companies like MS which will continue to pour resources specifically to stay ahead in market dominance and exclude any potential rivals. So, there will always be catching up and new releases with bug fixes, features and the inevitable bugs.

If you want to use LibO, there are certain responsibilities a user would benefit from assuming: be responsible for what you install - don't use new releases for production work that demands stability. If you want the latest MS interoperability feature, then you trade stability for innovation. Your call. As Kracked and Tom and Paul wrote previously, select a conservative update value or just go with the version packaged by your distro if using GNU/ Linux or your BSD flavour.

The LibO developers have put together a great suite of software that is stable, flexible, scalable, fast, stays out of the way of the user (for the most part, but I still prefer greater flexibility with the bullets and numbering format option, and still struggle with multiple user styles! :-) ), and so we, as users, need to step forward a bit in their direction too by being more responsible for our own interactions with the software.

There is no good need for you to chase the upgrade cycle unless the benefits of doing so outweigh the benefits of maintaining a stable system. This is just good management whether someone is or is not technologically unsophisticated: don't mess with what is mission critical unless you have a damn good reason to do so and can do so knowing how to reverse the process if needs be. As a user, especially in this day and age, this is your responsibility, not the developers.


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.