[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: LibreOffice Still?





On Wed, 1 Oct 2014 07:28:52 +1000
Hedley Finger <hedley.finger@gmail.com> wrote:

> Aha! I think I have solved the terminology problem!
>
> For many working on the LO project, English is their second language.*
> Clearly, when terms were being proposed, someone misheard, which why
> is why the two forks were not named “Fresh" and “Stale".

And that right there is one of the problems with the current
terminology. It creates a perception in those who don't know better
that the "Fresh" branch is the one to use, and that "Stale" is
something they shouldn't use, as the term just sounds slightly
objectionable, which also applies to "Still" to a lesser extent. If
this is truly what the LO project wants, then why offer the "Still"
branch at all? Clearly they do see the need for both, but they are not
portraying that choice clearly to the end user. Much will be resolved
once that is explained clearly on the website.

> Rearguards,
> Hedley
>
> * I have only one language and even that is not too flash.
>
> Typed laboriously on my Galaxy S2
> On 01/10/2014 4:01 AM, "Tanstaafl" <tanstaafl@libertytrek.org> wrote:
>
> > On 9/30/2014 10:40 AM, Sophie <gautier.sophie@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > Le 30/09/2014 16:12, Tanstaafl a écrit :
> > >> variation) - ie, 'Stable', 'Testing', 'Development' - is what is
> > ridiculous.
> >
> > > But those doesn't exist anywhere else, because we are not
> > > producing a distro but a desktop software and the concept is
> > > completely different.

I have to disagree, the concept is not different *at all*.


> > > And yet, this is something that you don't
> > > want to ear.
> >
> > Not at all... it is nothing to do with my not wanting to hear
> > anything.
> >
> > The end result software is completely different, but the concept is
> > *identical*.

I must agree.


> >
> > All you need to do to confirm this is read what you (the proponents
> > of these silly/ridiculous newly invented terms 'Fresh' and 'Still')
> > say to *describe* these terms to see this.
> >
> > Saying otherwise is totally disengenuous.
> >
> > >> Use STANDARD terms, then precisely define THOSE.
> >
> > > Which are certainly not stable, testing and development.

Those terms most definitely *are* standard. Not the only standard,
perhaps, but very clearly a common choice.


> >
> > Seriously? If you truly believe this, then you have never done any
> > software development.
> >
> > >> If you really insist on having two different 'Stable' branches,
> > >> then name them something like 'Stable-New' and 'Stable-Old' or
> > >> something else that makes much more sense than 'Still' or 'Fresh.
> >
> > > Then, do you think that those two stable won't confuse the users?
> >
> > Some, yes, but *far* *far* less than 'Still' and 'Fresh', nd it
> > will be much easier to explain the difference.

Personally I would vote for something like "Stable-Current" or
"Stable-Features" and "Stable-Mature", or terms in that vein, but I
have to agree, choosing those sorts of terms would be more in line with
the explanations of what they are intended for that are given so often
here.


> > > >
> > > > Of course, if you just enjoy *creating* confusion, then by all
> > > > means, continue reinventing terms with new ones that no one
> > > > understands and sound silly on top of it all.
> > >
> > > I don't think that anybody contributing in this project wants to
> > > lose users and contributors time. Each time, we explain and
> > > discuss to try to find the best way to resolve and further things.

And the discussions I feel are good, they do give many opinions voice,
and thus better ideas are born. But we do seem to be at a stalemate,
where one camp keeps showing a dislike of the current terms, and
suggests change, and the other side keeps pointing out that they intend
for the terms to stay. There doesn't seem to be a good argument in
favour of the terms, only a debate about whether the other terms
truly are better. I say they can hardly be worse.


> > > Kind regards
> > > Sophie


> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscribe@global.libreoffice.org
> > Problems?
> > http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
> > 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
> >
>


--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscribe@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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

Follow-Ups:
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: LibreOffice Still?Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@libertytrek.org>
References:
[libreoffice-users] LibreOffice Still?NoOp <glgxg@sbcglobal.net>
[libreoffice-users] Re: LibreOffice Still?arakish <rmfrunyan@gmail.com>
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: LibreOffice Still?"\"J. Van Brimmer\"" <jerry.vb@gmail.com>
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: LibreOffice Still?Florian Reisinger <florei@libreoffice.org>
[libreoffice-users] Re: LibreOffice Still?alphacrash <v837502@att.net>
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: LibreOffice Still?Cor Nouws <oolst@nouenoff.nl>
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: LibreOffice Still?Tom Davies <tomcecf@gmail.com>
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: LibreOffice Still?Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@libertytrek.org>
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: LibreOffice Still?"Charles-H. Schulz" <charles.schulz@documentfoundation.org>
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: LibreOffice Still?Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@libertytrek.org>
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: LibreOffice Still?Sophie <gautier.sophie@gmail.com>
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: LibreOffice Still?Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@libertytrek.org>
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: LibreOffice Still?Hedley Finger <hedley.finger@gmail.com>
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.