On 10/1/2014 5:06 AM, Charles-H. Schulz
I don't see these on the Firefox site, I see Firefox, Firefox Beta and
Firefox Aurora, and these seem to have a passable explanation. I would
have liked a slightly better, or more in-depth one, but at least I do
get an idea of what each is for. But the use of the name Beta makes
that one clear, and Aurora explains that it is in an unstable
state, so all makes sense.
For you it is maybe, not for others. For instance, if you put this:
and that: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/
in perspective, some here are going to go into overdrive, as they will
not be able to see the difference between the Firefox "standard" channel
and the ESR.
This is a really bad example, Charles, and totally misses the main point:
As Paul said, he *didn't see* those from the main Firefox website. That
is *intentional*. Mozilla explained this in great detail when they were
pushed kicking and screaming (sic) to offer the ESR version. They did
not want to do this. Their enterprise users demanded it. They would have
lost a huge user base if they had NOT done this.
So, when they did it, they intentionally made the ESR version *hard to
find*. That is why Paul couldn't find it.
Then, they will say, "OMG, it means Firefox is not stable, because
there's an ESR that is obviously stable, which means Firefox =
Firefox Beta, so what does it mean? Are you crazy?".
No, the vast majority of Firefox users don't even know there is an ESR,
and if they do learn about it, they are usually told something like "oh,
that is the version for large companies who don't like things that
change too much or too fast."
For instance, automatically assuming that our most recent branch is
Charles, fyi, in our office, we are stuck on 4.1.6 because of a major
regression introduced in 4.2 that is still there today.
When our first user reported this after I started updating everyone (at
about 4.2.4), so I had to revert them all (I'd gotten maybe 20
workstations updated that weekend).
I kept promising my boss that 'they will have to fix this, it is a
regression and they treat these seriously' - but here we are, 8 months
later, and we still cannot upgrade. Because everyone found about about
this, a few very vocal users in our office took this opportunity to
start lobbying (again) for replacing Libreoffice with Microsoft Office,
and it looks like they are going to win this time. I know it is only 70
seats, and you probably don't really care, but I do. The fact is, I
cannot even recommend Libreoffice on new clients in good conscience, if
the response to a very serious regression bug report is along the lines
of 'well, you can just fix it yourself, it is free open source after all'.
*Anytime* a long standing feature is totally ripped out and replaced
with something else that causes a major regression, it should be an
absolute top priority to fix it in the very next release. In fact, I
would say that it should be a part of the agreement that any contributor
signs, that if they are the one responsible for a regression like this,
they are *required* to fix it asap.
So, for us, 4.2 and 4.3 are *both* unstable - meaning, we *cannot use
them*, because they lack a very basic capability that we have relied on
since, oh, I don't know... version 1?
In case you were wondering, it is the new 'Inline Fields' functionality,
that when introduced, broke the ability to paste into them, and the bug
is still there today, in 4.3.2.
To unsubscribe e-mail to: firstname.lastname@example.org
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
Impressum (Legal Info)
: 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