It's a shame that this discussion is not taking place on the marketing list where we have been asked to discuss. This thread will not be read by the others on the marketing list and will miss all of both of your good points to the discussion.
Marc Le 2020-10-23 à 15 h 27, Telesto a écrit : > 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"? >>>> >>> > > -- Marc Paré [email protected] https://www.parEntreprise.com parEntreprise.com Supports OpenDocument Formats (ODF) parEntreprise.com Supports http://www.LibreOffice.org LibreOffice Office Suite - 200 million users and growing! Over 1,000 project developers with impeccable help from its user base. -- 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
