Hi Virgil, Just to comment on one aspect: > It appears to me as if, with LO, we users are doing the testing that > commercial companies do in-house. Well, yes, kind of. You see, the open source world doesn't have lots of paid developers to do this sort of testing, so it does in part rely on the user base for this. Some of the users like being involved, some, like you, may not. Having so many people involved does, in many people's opinion, result in a better, more stable product faster than with commercial software.
> I honestly don't like it and I suspect that this way of doing things > will drive users away. Unfortunately it may drive some away. There isn't much to be done about that, I fear, given that there isn't a budget for doing all the testing in-house, and any bugs that got missed would still be left for the user to find, just like with commercial software. Open source is just more up-front about admitting that the user may encounter bugs. The best we can hope for is that those that don't want to risk bugs, and don't mind sacrificing features, will stick to more stable versions. And perhaps being clearer on the website will help users make that choice. You can't have both stability and features in one version. Either a new version with the feature is released early, possibly with other bugs in it, or it is released late when more bugs have been found, but then you have to just do without it until it is released. I do think that there should be a better way to install side-by-side versions, such that users can easily try out the new features of a newer release, to see if any feature they desire has been added (or any bug they found has been fixed), without giving up the stability of their current, stable version. A recent thread spoke of how AOO doesn't uninstall previous versions, while LO does. I feel LO should clearly give you the choice during the install, allowing you to simply upgrade if you wish (removing the old version), or install next to the old version, giving you both. Something for the devs to think about? Just my thoughts. Paul On Sat, 27 Jul 2013 08:26:07 -0400 "Virgil Arrington" <cuyfa...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Amit wrote: > > >The main problem here is that the user does not know wheher the next > >release is more stable than previous one or not. And the user will > >get caught in the conflict in the sense that he will think that may > >be if he does not upgrade then he might be losing out on some > >features. This conflict makes him try to use the new release and > >then he gets frustrated. The same thing had happened to me when I > >was using Open Office. I ENDED UP BUYING MICROSOFT OFFICE BECAUSE > >OPENOFFICE WAS NOT STABLE. > > >A customer can compromise on fetaures but not on stability. A stable > >release with less formatting options is much more desirable than an > >unstable software with lots of formatting options. > > I fully agree with Amit. I'm "just" a user, not a developer. As a > user, my primary concern is knowing my program will do what I need > faithfully and without bugs. I will gladly substitute advanced > features for stability. And, it really frosts me to see a new release > resurrect bugs that had been previously fixed. Nothing feels worse > than going backwards with a program. > > Until recently, like many, I was confused by the LO release cycle, > always thinking that the latest release would be the best and most > stable. But, recently, I saw the graph showing how it all works. It > appears to me as if, with LO, we users are doing the testing that > commercial companies do in-house. I honestly don't like it and I > suspect that this way of doing things will drive users away. > > Virgil > > > > -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@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
