Official Edition is confusing. Which suggests there is also a Unofficial
edition.
A copy cat fork? Or are those LTS releases powered by clones, trying to
make a profit from TDF LibreOffice
A normal framework would be regular and LTS releases. However this
distinction not totally working out as there is not one vendor doing both
they Regular release and LTS.
So maybe (some sound really awful, but maybe it helps with brainstorming)
LibreOffice Regular Edition by TDF
LibreOffice Common Edition
LibreOffice Fresh Edition
LibreOffice Feature-rich Edition
LibreOffice Innovation Edition
LibreOffice Innovative Edition
LibreOffice Novel Edition
LibreOffice State of the Art Edition
LibreOffice Progress Edition
LibreOffice Progressive Edition
LibreOffice Advancement Edition
LibreOffice Latest
LibreOffice Active Edition
LibreOffice Modern Edition
LibreOffice Snapshot edition
Also bit hard to differentiate between 'branch' and 'edition'
LibreOffice by TDF is branched of the 'latest' while LTS being somewhat
'conventional'
Sometime I tend to 'drop' the explicit mentioning of 'Edition'.
Does it really need explicit 'Edition' to be called edition when
materially an edition?
So the website/wiki etc LibreOffice is promoted as Latest supplied/ made
available by TDF.
LibreOffice simply called LibreOffice. Prominently being presented as
based on a 'rolling' release model/framework which might be more unstable,
with a 'fixed' snapshot schedule. So we tag it 7.0.2 for differentiation
purposes (bug tracking/communication).
Without explicitly guaranteeing 7.0.3 to be better compared to 7.0.2. It
often is, but not all they time.
Take current 7.0.2 bit a of a calculation disaster compared to 7.0.1
So would advocate a more or less Debian Development model. Rolling model
with Cycles (smaller incremental) large major updates.
Where LibreOffice LTS powered by being framed a still/stable editions
for more 'conventional usage'
Note also they distinction by 'powered' and 'supplied' or 'made
available' which more passive, compared to
powered. TDF simply builds the 'latest' branch, doesn't do much
development by itself.
And to make 'LTS' bit more attractive.. drop the whole stable/still
edition at TDF.
People using LibreOffice should be on 'rolling'. Or use they archive to
find some older version.
People don't have to upgrade. But TDF doesn't need to have a
unmaintained 'still'.
Where as the still branch never had a proper reputation (at least in my
world). I mostly pick fresh (or even master).
Replace that with a 'LTS story' powered by.. It cheap enough to be
bought by regular users.
So or they contribute by being in the 'rolling' - permanent
improving/regressing testing version. Or opt for the more reliable,
older and paid LTS.
And we could put a note how to dig up they last release in a cycle.
However not to be communicated actively as 'stable'.
What I personally conceive is a mess if of course 'powered by'. There
are two or more LTS versions :-(
And I assume there are some difference between CIB <-> Collabora (except
the name),
but I'm surely not knowing what that should be. I mean it, I really
don't know!
Is CIB better compared to Collabora? Or visa versa? Is there no
difference, but why two versions? I'm still confused here.
As a user I would think, did I buy the right one.
Regards,
Telesto
Op 23-10-2020 om 18:43 schreef Simon Phipps:
It certainly (correctly) indicates there are unofficial editions in
circulation. I see that as a helpful differentiator. I would not jump to
the conclusion they are untrustworthy; however, the use of a validated
"Libreoffice technology" signifier as Italo has proposed would fix that if
it were a problem for other editions to confirm they too are approved by
TDF.
The term "Community Edition" is very commonly used to differentiate
feature-limited versions so if I had to choose, I would rather our version
was considered strong because we use an "Official Edition" tag rather than
the software produced by others being considered stronger because we use a
"Community Edition" tag.
Cheers,
Simon
On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 3:16 PM Nigel Verity <[email protected]>
wrote:
Doesn't this imply there are some unofficial and, thereby, untrustworthy
editions in circulation?
Nige
On 23 Oct 2020, at 06:44, Simon Phipps <[email protected]> wrote:
Taking on board all the concerns about not giving the impression of a
weaker version, and if "no label" is really not an option, how about
calling TDF's package "official edition"?
--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: [email protected]
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
