Michael Adams wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:28:42 +0000
mike scott wrote:
On 11 Dec 2007 at 8:51, Mathias Bauer wrote:
...
That would look different if we stepped back to less frequent
feature releases so that bugfix releases happened much more often.
But I don't see that at the horizon.
I think it makes more sense to stick with full updates but make
their installation smoother.
That's fine for those of us on high-speed links. And I like to have
the full release archived "just in case" a roll-back is needed in
future (as nearly happened going from 2.2 -> 2.3).
But what about those on dial-up lines, or who for some other reason
have difficulty in downloading? Is it fair to tell them to keep buying
CDs from someone to get the new release? /If/ (and I don't know the
figures) they represent a significant proportion of the likely user
community (present /and future/) will this update policy impact
unduly on the market penetration of OOo?
If i was in that situation, i would just weigh up the relative merits of
the upgrade:
* Is it a feature release?
* Is it a bugfix that i was waiting for?
* Is it a security upgrade?
Then either carefully consider my opinion, or toss a coin. It is still
an easier decision than investing in MSOffice every year. Are you seeing
grief where there need be none?
Perhaps there should be a short note with each new release titled
something like "Who needs to upgrade to this release?" and a list of
what has been upgraded, fixed, new features added etc. and everyone can
decide if it is worth the bother of downloading and installing, or
whether to just wait for a more significant release. Perhaps also a
cumulative list of changes since some early release, 2.0 for instance.
I no longer upgrade every time there is a new release, some just aren't
that significant, or have no changes in things that I am likely to use.
