Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2015 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Hi :)
"Thanks for the flowers"/approval which i've snipped.  It's a shock to
finally agree on something! :))

The LTS approach was a new way of dealing with an old problem.  The old and
still current problem is that projects are pulled in 2 opposing
1.  exciting and new developments, fashion, bling
2.  stay with something familiar and see it mature.  NOT having to
constantly work at it.

That is probably why Redhat and Debian (and family) and many others (even
[shudders] Microsoft and to a lesser extent Apple) provide a version that
basically stays the same for years.  Heck, many places grumble about
'having to' upgrade from Xp because it 'only' lasted 10 years!  Some
organisations happily pay millions per year extra purely in order to be
able to stay with the same old Xp and STILL haven't developed a strategy
for upgrading.

Arch and others attempt to deal with the problem by doing rolling releases
- which brings it's own set of problems - as Windows 10 users and Microsoft
will doubtless be learning afresh over the next couple of years.  Arch has
already long ago grokked this so MS could learn valuable lessons from them
but i think we all know they can't learn wisdom from outside, unless they
really have changed.

So in answer to your question to Alex; "Yes".  Many places would appreciate
updates rather than to keep demanding their Sys. Admins have to keep
re-installing new upgrades.

It'd also be great if there were some sort of "Super Still" branch, like
Debian, or Redhat (and many others) that kept getting updates for 3-4
years.  So that organisations could install the Super Still branch on new
systems in complete confidence that they wouldn't need to touch the system
again for a couple years.

There are other cases where people don't have broadband for downloading
full upgrades but could do with having a system they could rely on for
years.  European city-dwellers might not quite realise what it's like
without broadband.

I think it's interesting that the super-rich share a problem in common with
the desperately isolated and cut-off.  One which is largely addressed by
almost all of Gnu&Linux but not by LibreOffice.
Regards from
Tom :)

<snip />

Also you might add that TDF does not offer LTS because TDF is not a
business and therefore has no incentive in a LTS version which only makes
sense if you monetize it. The poster example of this is Canonical and
Ubuntu LTS.  Canonical makes money on LTS and is only able to do so because
the LTS itself is a profitable business.  Otherwise you would not even hear
of it. Businesses looking for something very similar to a LTS version of
LibreOffice can contact our certified developers and their companies though.



<snip />

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.