Hi :) I have to disagree. Amit does have some good points even if some minor details are not entirely accurate.
It's a subject we often argue about here. Yes we do need to follow MS's lead and keep working at greater and greater compatibility with their formats and their ways of doing things. That is why we do invest a LOT of time and resources into doing exactly that. Amit is right. However their format does keep changing around a bit between one release of their program and the next. It's unpredictable despite the name of their format staying the same and despite them having acquired the ISO stamp of approval for the name of their ever-changing format. So they make 1 small tweak here or there and keep everyone busy trying to guess where the change is and how to read it now. The main problem is that if we always follow MSO's lead then they will always be in the lead. Regards from Tom :) >________________________________ > From: Andrew Brown <andre...@icon.co.za> >To: Amit Choudhary <contact.amit.choudhary.in...@gmail.com> >Cc: Tom Davies <tomdavie...@yahoo.co.uk>; la10...@iperbole.bologna.it; >users@global.libreoffice.org >Sent: Sunday, 28 July 2013, 11:36 >Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] 4.0.3 > > >Amit > >Your knowledge of the document standards is limited by your reply here. >This issue of the document standards and naming convention was covered >by a world body of multinationals and the preservation of all things in >human digital text etc. This was to allow anyone, alien or earthly, >thousands of years from now, to decode and read and modify the history >in the digital world of mankind. So the open document standards were >born and ratified and accepted by the majority of the world that counts. >MS did not agree and tried to introduce their own so-called opens >standard with the .xml base, i.e.x docx, xlsx, and so forth. > >But it has not been accepted by the world bodies, even though the MS >document standard does survive. As you will now notice MSO 2007 >(partially), MSO 2010 and 2013 all can reads and write in the ODS >standard used by OOo, AOO and LO. MS had no choice but to fit in and >follow suit, so it's not the other way around that we and all other s >outside of the use of MSO, must fit in. The ODS standard is here to >stayt and will dominate over time, no matter what the masses say and >want. It's about education that we all have choices and many efficient >and useful alternatives in the digital world. > >Regards > >Andrew Brown > >On 27/07/2013 12:46 PM, Amit Choudhary wrote: >> If we have to beat Microsoft then we need to focus only on what Microsoft >> provides and not on .odt format, etc. We cannot beat Microsoft by >> introducing a new format and expecting customers to use new formats (I use >> Microsoft formats only and whatever other formats is suported by Microsoft). >> >> We need to beat Microsoft at its own game by doing what they are doing in >> office suite. A new format is not going to change the game but being >> totally compatible and stable with the formats that Micorosoft supports >> (xls, xlsx, doc, docx, save as pdf, text, etc.) is going to change the game. >> >> Amit >> >> On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Amit Choudhary < >> contact.amit.choudhary.in...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Tom, >>> >>> I have been programming since 1987. I have all my degrees in computer >>> science/networking. I have worked for companies like Cisco systems, Juniper >>> networks and have turned down offers from companies like Google and >>> Microsoft for one reason or other. >>> >>> This whole software industry is going in the wrong direction. Actually, by >>> now we should have been done by all the software (all the necessary >>> software developed and installed and used, no bugs, etc. >>> >>> We need to beat Microsoft because we do not want to pay for Office suite. >>> >>> The best way of doing this is to release stable versions only and this can >>> be done by increasing the QA cycle period. >>> >>> I do not release buggy software unless it has been approved by management. >>> And I have not released any software that's gonna hurt the customer even if >>> I have to get into discussions with managers, directors, etc. >>> >>> This whole idea of releasing software frequently is a scam, because work >>> doesn't get done properly in a small time window. No one gets any time for >>> innovation and everyone is just interested in the release. And in the end, >>> the software dies down because the frequent release does not fix things >>> properly and introduces new bugs and over time all these quickfixes kill >>> the product. >>> >>> THERE IS NO DEMAND FROM CUSTOMERS FOR FREQUENT RELEASES. THE DEMAND IS >>> FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE SOFTWARE ANALYSTS AND THEY WANT SOMETHING TO DO AND >>> HENCE THEY WANT FREQUENT RELEASES. IT IS A BIG SCAM. >>> >>> I use around 5-6 external softwares and if everyone is releasing something >>> every month then it becomes a headache to me. >>> >>> RELEASING ONLY TWICE A YEAR IS VERY FOOD. >>> >>> THE BIGGEST RISK OF RELEASING FREQUENTLY IS THAT ORIGINAL PROBLEMS ARE NOT >>> SOLVED PROPERLY AND QUICKFIXES MAKE MANAGING THE SOFTWARE COMPLICATED AND >>> IN THE END THE DEVELOPERS GIVE UP AND THE PRODUCT IS SHELVED. >>> >>> AND ALL THIS HAPPENS WITH PAID SOFTWARE TOO. >>> >>> Amit >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Tom Davies <tomdavie...@yahoo.co.uk>wrote: >>> >>>> Hi :) >>>> I think with Base it's better to stay with older branches. The 3.6.7 >>>> might be better. if the 4.0.3 works for you then stick with that. >>>> >>>> Sadly there are still not many devs working on Base. It's not flashy >>>> enough! >>>> Regards from >>>> Tom :) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> ________________________________ >>>>> From: "la10...@iperbole.bologna.it" <la10...@iperbole.bologna.it> >>>>> To: users@global.libreoffice.org >>>>> Sent: Friday, 26 July 2013, 10:31 >>>>> Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] 4.0.3 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Unfortunately, the "3rd digit rule" doesn't work as goog as expected... >>>>> I use report builder in base, 4.0.3.3 version. Download 4.0.4 and >>>>> report builder no more works (crash in opening). >>>>> >>>>> thanks anyway for developers work, I remember this is a free sw, at >>>> the >>>>> end.... >>>>> >>>>> Federico Quadri >>>>> >>>>> Tom Davies <tomdavie...@yahoo.co.uk> ha scritto: >>>>>> Hi :) >>>>>> That 3rd digit is roughly the equivalent of "Service pack". So >>>>>> usually the higher it is the more stable it is. Of course even just >>>>>> bug-patches and fixes can sometimes introduce unexpected problems >>>>>> that might not get caught by QA. >>>>>> >>>>>> The best answer, imo, is to keep a very stable version that you >>>>>> are happy enough with on all the machines you look after especially >>>>>> ones that have limited access or that you can't reach easily. Then >>>>>> on 1 machine find some way of being able to test-drive an occasional >>>>>> beta-test versions before it gets released. Preferably do about 1 >>>>>> per branch. The problem is that things you might care about deeply >>>>>> might not even be getting used by other people at all. So it's only >>>>>> you that might notice. So if you didn't test-drive then the problem >>>>>> might never be found. Also it's better to do your testing on a beta >>>>>> release rather than a full release because it's during the early >>>>>> beta stage that the most devs are the most focussed on the 1 single >>>>>> version and trying to solve the most problems quickly. Also it's >>>>>> when the fewest other people are making bug-reports. >>>>>> >>>>>> There are various ways you could make sure you have access to 1 >>>>>> version for use for work that has a dead-line and another version >>>>>> that you can just use to try things out and make sure it all works. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards from >>>>>> Tom :) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>>> From: Amit Choudhary <contact.amit.choudhary.in...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> To: "users@global.libreoffice.org" <Users@global.libreoffice.org> >>>>>>> Sent: Friday, 26 July 2013, 3:35 >>>>>>> Subject: [libreoffice-users] 4.0.3 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I was using 4.0.2 and then I downloaded 4.0.3 but 4.0.3 is not >>>>>>> as stable as >>>>>>> 4.0.2. So, now I am downloading 4.0.4. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am more interested in stable and feature rich (optional) >>>>>>> software rather >>>>>>> than frequently released software. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Stablility is very important because a non-stable software / >>>> software >>>>>>> having many bugs results in loss of time and frustartion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Amit >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> > > >-- >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 > > > -- 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
