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

It seems that today, someone did not have a good day.

I was referring to the author of the article that you discussed in the mailing list.

While I exposed items refer only to code quality, and lower occurrence of errors in it, you can deduce that means better software and more stable (there is much information on the internet about it), by so, that refutes the words of the author of PC Magazine.

On the other hand, I did not speak of features. MS Office does things that LibreOffice not and vice versa. In addition, each office suite has different ways of doing the same things. Overall, for my LibreOffice you can deliver more than the average user MS Office (assuming that the user is willing to re-learn some things).

At the end of the day, each user should be able to choose according to their needs. But this kind of of Article (regardless of their reason for being), I seem a bit irresponsible.


El 05-11-2015 16:27, CVAlkan escribió:

In response to Bastián and Charles:

To Bastián: It isn't clear whether "author" in your reply "whimsical and
uninformed comments from the author" referred to the author of the PC
Magazine (and this is certainly a Windows-centric publication) article or
the author of the posting (me), but no matter. I hope I'm whimsical,
although both Mr. Mendelson (whom I've never met, by the way) and I have been using word processors since pre-DOS days. I've been reading his reviews
and other articles since the mid-eighties. We may both be "wrong" but I
don't really believe either of us is uninformed.

I should point out, however, that your listing of "some articles with facts
showing quality and low error" all discuss 'code quality' as opposed to
'application quality' - often related, but not at all the same thing. To provide a simple example, suppose that someone writes a snippet of code to
add two integers together: we can consider at least three outcomes when
reviewing this code:

1) The code provides wrong answers, and has a significant memory leak;
2) The code provides correct answers, but has a significant memory leak;
3) The code provides correct answers and any memory leaks have been
corrected or never existed.

Providing the correct answer would be a measure of 'application quality',
while avoiding memory leaks would be a measure of 'code quality.'

The articles you reference deal (in my silly example) only with the question of code quality (the memory leak). And, yes, it is generally acknowledged by everyone that the TDF team has made enormous strides in this regard. But
this is only tangentially related to 'application quality' (which also
includes a variety of things like "usability," "documentation,"
"interoperability" and a host of other factors.

Another thing to consider is somewhat more intangible, and descends into what might be closer to opinion than measurement: since any reviewer would suspect that the code described above is redundant (one would assume that a library call to add two integers is available), the application in which my mythical code exists might well be architecturally deficient. That may or
may not be a flaw depending on your opinion, but such things, e.g.
unnecessary redundancy, certainly don't promote quality.

But, although (as I said) I don't agree with Mr. Mendelson's
characterization (that LibreOffice is unstable), it seems to me he is
discussing the "correct answer" portion of the code example I give - which is appropriate for his audience, most of whom wouldn't have the foggiest idea what a memory leak was and wouldn't notice the effects of such a thing until the inevitable crash. And, for many users, connecting the crash to a specific memory leak might never happen. In fact, the articles you reference point to the reasons why the software is more stable now than when TDF began attacking it. As you say, there is "still much more to do" but I have to think that the steps taken so far are/were exactly the right way to begin.

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.