jonathon wrote:
<snip>
Who said that I was a normal user?
The assumption is that if you are _NOT_ a developer, or actively
filing bug reports, or doing QA, you are a "normal user".
And as such, using anything other than the released stable version is
akin to asking for your hardware to be trashed, and your data to be
totally corrupted beyond the point of forensic recovery.
(If you do QA, development, or bug hunting, and aren't willing to
have to buy new hardware, due to bugs trashing either hardware, or
data, then you need to reconsider whether or not you want to continue
that activity.)
No I am not a "normal user".
If you are unwilling to have your hardware trashed --- as has been
done by at least one unofficial developer build --- you are a
"normal user".
<snip>
jonathon
Now we get down to a semi-technical definition of a
"normal user". Very Good. Very Nice. You give a
if you are not this and this, you must be that.
Now we are getting some valid information about the
in's and out's of being a tester of a Developer Build.
But what is an Unofficial Developer Build? I hope it
is not one that is posted on the OOo web site. I think
not. You would never post such a build.
But yes, I am not an active bug hunter/reporter. I can
no longer do the type of programming needed to advance
the project. Yes I am not doing Q&A on this system.
THEN:
---------------
Tanstaafl wrote:
<snip>
> If you want to use the dev versions, then by all means use them,
> as long as you understand the risks..
<snip>
---------------
Let me just say this, NOW we have people on this list
tell others about the risks of using the non-stable
builds that are publicly available on the download pages.
<quote>
The software offered on this website has not been tested and thus is not
recommended for production deployment. These builds are under
development and therefore unstable.
<unquote>
The above statement does not go far enough if they are as
unstable as to make my computer, or anyone's computer,
into a "brick".
Why is it on the web site if the build is not tested?
As a former mainframe programmer that does not make sense.
Yes I take it personally when someone tell me or anyone
you should not use something or do something just because
I am pigeon-holed into a undefined category. It is just like
being called stupid just because the person has trouble reading
or speaking to "your" expectations for not being stupid.
Now we get more information on what "others" feel is a
"normal user" of OpenOffice.org. Now we get some reasons
why some of "you" feel that the "normal users" should not
try the developmental builds. Now what about the Release
Candidates? Are the reasons the same, but less likely?
Now the statement about getting your hardware trashed is
interesting to me. Trashed How? Trashed Why? With
software I got for my HP laptop, from HP as an update, I
ended up having to do a restore from backups. Even the
"big boys" of industry can have you run a software update
and trash your computer, but not to the point that the hardware
goes bad. I have never seen that since I started programming
in the 70's. The point is that any software can mess with
your system, since every system is different once you get
it home or in the office. Only a few companies make computers
with full control of the hardware inserted into their motherboards.
So EVERY software cannot be tested to all the specifications
variables out there.
Here is an idea; how about needing a user to log into a
system to be able to download the non-RC builds? How
about giving more information about who are the ones who
should or should not download these "non-stable" builds?
How about not assuming that what you thing a normal user
is will be what the next person would think one is?
Thank you for the above definitions. I am not a normal
user in my mind, but in yours - before you gave your definitions.
There are no normal users, just ones that fit in a generalized
category of what they do with the software. "The Norm" is the
term, if I remember correctly.
As for me, I am now on two "Board of Directors" by election.
I use three OS's and develop online and offline documentation
for more than one organization. I have been a programmer, a
writer, a teacher, and a husband to someone with Alzheimer's,
while dealing with a debilitating disability. No I can never
be called normal.
BUT, if you now say that I am not active in the development of OOo,
then I am not a developer. We all are active testers of this software
whether we report on bug, or problem here or on the official bug
reporting system.
Well, I am sorry for another long posting for this thread and/or
list. But this thread has served some purpose. We now know
that there is more information needed about the possible risks
of trying the developmental builds of this software. Maybe we
should also be reminded that generalizing who people are can
be risky and taken the wrong way.
No matter what you think of me, or any other person commenting
on this list, they all see and read thing differently from you.
What I write down in my text can be read differently than what
I meant it to be. It gets worse when you do not speak my
language as your first language. [same for my with your language].
What I do best as a programmer and a teacher was to make people
think of possibilities and the details needed to cope with those
possibilities. Now we have more information on the possibilities
of using the DEV downloads, and what some people think what the
normal users are.
Thanks for the "food for thought". Without it our minds may
"starve".
Web Kracked, Tim Lungstrom, an un-normal person/thinker.
"If we all think the same, there is no change, ever." Alpha-Omega
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
