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

Re: OpenOffice 3.1

On Mon, 2009-05-11 at 04:11 +0400, Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus)
> Rodd Clarkson wrote:
> > Um, I'm a little confused.  You want bleeding edge, and you see Fedora
> > as a bleeding edge distro.  You also want OOo3.1 backported from f11 to
> > f10.
> > 
> > If you're into bleeding edge, won't you get OOo3.1 when you upgrage to
> > f11? And if you're not upgrading from f10, then your comments about
> > bleeding edge can't be that serious.
> > 
> > I think it's fair to assume that anyone using f10 is happy with it just
> > the way it is, and don't desperately want the current version, and that
> > if they aren't they will choose to upgrade (or cross over to another
> > distro).
> > 
> I speak about Fedora distro, not only rawhide. You think user which is 
> not upgraded into Fedora 11 first alpha do not want get updates for used 
> application??

I never mentioned rawhide, but if I had I might have said 'if you want
bleeding edge and often broken'.

> Off course, main new features like new hash algorithm in RPM, ext4 by 
> default etc. must be *only* in new release. But, I, as maintainer, still 
> use Fedora 9 on one of my machine, and still can't find time to upgrade 
> it... So, please tell me why you think if I, say on My Work notebook use 
> Fedora 10 I do not want use OO 3.1??? I want. I maintain my packages 
> mostly on Fedora 9 yet, but nothing prevent me maintain it for the all 
> supported releases: F9, F10, F11 and some also for EPEL. And it is not 
> prevent me love and hate bleeding edge Fedora! Also I can't on work 
> notebook have risk what X server don't started after upgrade to 
> alpha/beta/preview F11. And I play with it in Live media and in Virtual 
> Machine.

I can't account for your time use, and I understand that upgrading takes
time, especially when you maintain a number of machines.

As for your work laptop running f10 and not having time to upgrade to
f11, but want OOo3.1, let me give you and opposing argument.

My wife doesn't want to update her laptop every 6 months (I do) and she
gets really annoyed when the applications she uses change mid release
and she has to change with them.  She doesn't have the time to re-learn
an application and just want's to work in an consistent and expected
way.  She does however appreciate that her laptop is (relatively)
up-to-date and doesn't mind upgrading every 12 months (or so).

Should she have to have take the time to relearn applications because
you haven't got the time to upgrade?  More importantly, from her
perspective she doesn't give a damn if there are changes to things like
"new hash algorithm in RPM, ext4 by default etc" and doesn't even
realize that she uses these things.  She does however use OOo, Firefox,
Evolution and other applications and she does notice when they chance
and she doesn't like it changing all the time (and especially

> So, new features is new features. It is cool, but, if you bothered about 
> users, you must provide for that up to date environment, especially it 
> is not caused problems for you in all (ok, ok, I initially do not speak 
> about coming EOL Fedora 9) supported releases. In the end, no one is 
> forcing update! If you like OO 3.0 - please, use it, but if you want 
> 3.1, also - please, take it.

I love new-ness and up-to-date goodness, but the thing missing in this
whole discussion is what might be so compelling about OOo3.1 that we
need to be upgrade it mid-release (which is is for f10).  The original
email (for this thread) made some inquiries which appear to be problems
elsewhere and most of the other needs for OOo3.1 seem to be upgrades for
the sake of getting the latests (with no critical new features

I understand where you're coming from, but I also understand that not
everyone is coming from the same place as you and that while you're
needs (OOo3.1) are easy enough to address (with and upgrade, time
withstanding) you also need to appreciate that some don't want the
update, don't need it and are happy to have fallen a little bit away
(not RHEL, Centos, etc far, but a little bit) from the bleeding edge (or
more correctly, leading edge).


> IMHO, off course.

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