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

On 11/12/13 6:35 PM, John Meyer wrote:
On 11/12/2013 6:24 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 11/12/13 4:35 PM, John Meyer wrote:
On 11/12/2013 3:02 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 11/12/13 8:50 AM, John Meyer wrote:
On 11/11/2013 11:33 AM, Ken Springer wrote:
After using LO for awhile, I found and filed a couple of
bugs/issues.  I
wanted to contribute in the area of reporting issues, but I don't
the knowledge to fix them.  I didn't expect those problems to go
to the
head of the line.  But I *did* expect them to be put in the queue and
eventually fixed.

What I didn't like was being told my issues were not important.  BS!
It's important to me.

Let's say you have a car, and every 4th time you go to use it, it
start.  You take it to your mechanic, and each time you do, he tells
"it's not important, he's got bigger problems to solve". Are you
to continue to take it to that mechanic, or are you going to find a
different mechanic?

You didn't provide links to the bugs that you provided, so I really
can't tell if they're crashes every 4th time you start, "I don't like
where the mirror is placed", or something in between problems.

It never occurred to me someone would want the bug numbers. <G>

      1.  44871
      2.  44986

And yes
there is a right way to tell the customer that the issue is either not
one that you get to at this moment or that the majority prefer the
solution solved another way (usually it involves a suggestion of an
alternative technique).
But even though you treat the customer as if they are always right,
does not mean that they are always right.  Some things the customer is
wrong on.

Indeed, sometimes they are wrong.  But, if you want them to return,
they are always right.  :-)

I'm not sure I want somebody to return enough to bend over backwards
over a feature tweak vs taking the time to look at core functionality.
I'm pretty certain I (and Libre Office) would lose more customers than
they gain.

Then...  You don't want them as a customer/user, nothing more than
that.  Now, if you were building your own business, is that something
you want to be doing, driving customers away?

If I run a Mexican restaurant and won't change the menu on the fly to
cajun/spanish/chinese/japanese for each and every random person who
comes in, that doesn't mean that I don't want them as a customer.
Similarly speaking LibreOffice wants the people who would like to see
Outlook/Publisher clones included in the suite; they've just decided
that adding those would strain the project too much.   You seem to
confuse FOSS developer with personal concierge.

No, if you ran a Mexican restaurant, you forgot to include the tortilla when you made the burrito. Fix the burrito.

Or, I ordered a burrito, you gave me an uncooked fajita.

It's not about changing the menu, it's fixing the offerings on the menu.

Some things are out of budget for LO, and some things are
just preferred to be done another way.  The choice has been put in
court.  You can use LO or you can find another office suite that meets
your needs depending upon the issue.

As I've posted, I am looking for an alternative, and have
"candidates".    LOL

And you're welcome to them.  I doubt that they're going to bend over
backwards either, particularly if they are free and open source options.

No way to know how they will react, until you use them.  Any other
perspective is an opinion/assumption.

I've been around a couple of FOSS projects in my time.  Threatening to
leave because one or two issues which don't break the program won't fly
with them either.  In fact, I don't know of many paid software companies
that will do that unless you're the one paying for the custom made software.


Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 24.0
Thunderbird 17.0.8

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.