Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

LibreOffice 3.5 released

10 views
Skip to first unread message

Shadow

unread,
Feb 9, 2012, 2:17:04 PM2/9/12
to
Not on main pages yet, but it's on the ftp servers:

http://ftp.nluug.nl/office/libreoffice/libreoffice/stable/3.5.0/

I'll wait for the portable version.

[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

p00h the kat

unread,
Feb 9, 2012, 2:28:39 PM2/9/12
to
On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:17:04 -0200, Shadow <S...@dow.br> wrote:

> Not on main pages yet, but it's on the ftp servers:
>
>http://ftp.nluug.nl/office/libreoffice/libreoffice/stable/3.5.0/
>
> I'll wait for the portable version.

Oh! look they've gone for .msi. Corliss will have a fit. Please tell me they aren't
packing exe's...

--
p-00-h the cat
Internet Terrorist, Mass Sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker

David H. Lipman

unread,
Feb 9, 2012, 5:34:23 PM2/9/12
to
From: "Shadow" <S...@dow.br>

| Not on main pages yet, but it's on the ftp servers:
|
| http://ftp.nluug.nl/office/libreoffice/libreoffice/stable/3.5.0/
|
| I'll wait for the portable version.
|

LibreOffice 3.5.0rc3

So that's Release Candidate 3, not a final.



--
Dave
Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk
http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

Shadow

unread,
Feb 9, 2012, 6:45:11 PM2/9/12
to
On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 17:34:23 -0500, "David H. Lipman"
<DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:

>From: "Shadow" <S...@dow.br>
>
>| Not on main pages yet, but it's on the ftp servers:
>|
>| http://ftp.nluug.nl/office/libreoffice/libreoffice/stable/3.5.0/
>|
>| I'll wait for the portable version.
>|
>
>LibreOffice 3.5.0rc3
>
>So that's Release Candidate 3, not a final.

Why put it in all the mirrors as a stable release ?
I just downloaded it and uni-extracted it and the executable
files all say version 3.5.0.13
Nothing about an rc3.
Like I said, I'm waiting for the portable version..

Sure you downloaded from my link and not:

http://ftp.nluug.nl/office/libreoffice/libreoffice/testing/3.5.0-rc3/

?

Shadow

unread,
Feb 9, 2012, 7:09:23 PM2/9/12
to
On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 17:34:23 -0500, "David H. Lipman"
<DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:

>From: "Shadow" <S...@dow.br>
>
>| Not on main pages yet, but it's on the ftp servers:
>|
>| http://ftp.nluug.nl/office/libreoffice/libreoffice/stable/3.5.0/
>|
>| I'll wait for the portable version.
>|
>
>LibreOffice 3.5.0rc3
>
>So that's Release Candidate 3, not a final.

Arrgghh ! The files were dated 09-Feb-2012 when I browsed
them. Now they are all 02-Feb-2012.
Something happened.
:(

David H. Lipman

unread,
Feb 9, 2012, 7:15:49 PM2/9/12
to
From: "Shadow" <S...@dow.br>
Yes. I got that from the "About" when view it subsequent to installing it.

p00h the kat

unread,
Feb 9, 2012, 7:18:52 PM2/9/12
to
On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 22:09:23 -0200, Shadow <S...@dow.br> wrote:

>On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 17:34:23 -0500, "David H. Lipman"
><DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:
>
>>From: "Shadow" <S...@dow.br>
>>
>>| Not on main pages yet, but it's on the ftp servers:
>>|
>>| http://ftp.nluug.nl/office/libreoffice/libreoffice/stable/3.5.0/
>>|
>>| I'll wait for the portable version.
>>|
>>
>>LibreOffice 3.5.0rc3
>>
>>So that's Release Candidate 3, not a final.
>
> Arrgghh ! The files were dated 09-Feb-2012 when I browsed
>them. Now they are all 02-Feb-2012.
> Something happened.
> :(
> []'s

I'm going to my Mother's. I may never be able to trust you again.
Message has been deleted

»Q«

unread,
Feb 10, 2012, 8:47:22 AM2/10/12
to
On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:45:11 -0200
Shadow <S...@dow.br> wrote:

> On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 17:34:23 -0500, "David H. Lipman"
> <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:
>
> >From: "Shadow" <S...@dow.br>
> >
> >| Not on main pages yet, but it's on the ftp servers:
> >|
> >| http://ftp.nluug.nl/office/libreoffice/libreoffice/stable/3.5.0/
> >|
> >| I'll wait for the portable version.
> >|
> >
> >LibreOffice 3.5.0rc3
> >
> >So that's Release Candidate 3, not a final.
>
> Why put it in all the mirrors as a stable release ?

It goes on the mirrors because when they are hoping to release it. It
has to go out to mirrors before there's a release announcement, and
before there's a release announcement they can change their minds.

It's not released when some guy in a newsgroup says he's found it in a
directory named "stable" -- it's released when there's an announcement
from libreoffice.org.

I don't know whether OOo or libreoffice have ever had to change their
minds after some binaries had been placed in directories, but Mozilla
has, most recently with Fx 10.0. When this happens, there is much
whining from people who had downloaded bad builds because they'd seen a
link posted somewhere along with somebody proclaiming it "released".

p00h the kat

unread,
Feb 10, 2012, 9:16:07 AM2/10/12
to
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 07:47:22 -0600, »Q« <box...@gmx.net> wrote:

>It goes on the mirrors because when they are hoping to release it. It
>has to go out to mirrors before there's a release announcement, and
>before there's a release announcement they can change their minds.

Why not hide the directory. It's confusing.

>It's not released when some guy in a newsgroup says he's found it in a
>directory named "stable" -- it's released when there's an announcement
>from libreoffice.org.

If I were just looking via ftp how would I know that. I would assume the stable directory
contained the stable release.

Shadow

unread,
Feb 10, 2012, 11:37:37 AM2/10/12
to
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:18:52 +0000, p00h the kat
<supe...@IPaddress.invalid> wrote:

>
>I'm going to my Mother's. I may never be able to trust you again.

I AM your mother, you naughty little boy.
Luv, Mum

Shadow

unread,
Feb 10, 2012, 11:43:37 AM2/10/12
to
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 01:25:13 +0100, Yrrah <Yrra...@acf.invalid>
wrote:

>Shadow <S...@dow.br>:
>
>> Arrgghh ! The files were dated 09-Feb-2012 when I browsed
>> them. Now they are all 02-Feb-2012.
>> Something happened.
>
>V. 3.5 hasn't been announced on the LO website yet. What made you
>think that it's the stable release?
>
>Yrrah

I was stupid enough to think a file with a stable name in the
stable tree with a new file date was stable. I was just browsing when
I came across it.
Sorry.
I'll make it up to you, when the pseudo-stable portable build
comes out.
:)

»Q«

unread,
Feb 10, 2012, 3:57:53 PM2/10/12
to
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:16:07 +0000
p00h the kat <supe...@IPaddress.invalid> wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 07:47:22 -0600, »Q« <box...@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> >It goes on the mirrors because when they are hoping to release it.
> >It has to go out to mirrors before there's a release announcement,
> >and before there's a release announcement they can change their
> >minds.
>
> Why not hide the directory. It's confusing.

If you find yourself seeing ftp directory listings, put a piece of
cardboard over your screen to hide them.

p00h the kat

unread,
Feb 10, 2012, 4:33:39 PM2/10/12
to
That's like sweeping dirt under the carpet. I think it makes more sense just not to
publish a directory called stable containing a release candidate.

»Q«

unread,
Feb 10, 2012, 5:01:56 PM2/10/12
to
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:33:39 +0000
p00h the kat <supe...@IPaddress.invalid> wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:57:53 -0600, »Q« <box...@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:16:07 +0000
> >p00h the kat <supe...@IPaddress.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 07:47:22 -0600, »Q« <box...@gmx.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >It goes on the mirrors because when they are hoping to release it.
> >> >It has to go out to mirrors before there's a release announcement,
> >> >and before there's a release announcement they can change their
> >> >minds.
> >>
> >> Why not hide the directory. It's confusing.
> >
> >If you find yourself seeing ftp directory listings, put a piece of
> >cardboard over your screen to hide them.
>
> That's like sweeping dirt under the carpet.

Yeah, but the advice is only for people who don't know that things
like release announcements and dustpans. They only know about ftp and
brooms.

> I think it makes more sense just not to publish a directory called
> stable containing a release candidate.

Of course, you're welcome to drop by libreoffice.org to volunteer your
services in an effort to hide and unhide ftp directories and/or files on
hundreds of mirrors simultaneously, which is all that's needed to
solve the problem of people confused by ftp directory names.

»Q«

unread,
Feb 10, 2012, 5:03:44 PM2/10/12
to
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:01:56 -0600
»Q« <box...@gmx.net> wrote:

> Yeah, but the advice is only for people who don't know that things
> like release announcements and dustpans. They only know about ftp and
> brooms.

s/that/about

p00h the kat

unread,
Feb 10, 2012, 5:32:16 PM2/10/12
to
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:01:56 -0600, »Q« <box...@gmx.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:33:39 +0000
>p00h the kat <supe...@IPaddress.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:57:53 -0600, »Q« <box...@gmx.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:16:07 +0000
>> >p00h the kat <supe...@IPaddress.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 07:47:22 -0600, »Q« <box...@gmx.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >It goes on the mirrors because when they are hoping to release it.
>> >> >It has to go out to mirrors before there's a release announcement,
>> >> >and before there's a release announcement they can change their
>> >> >minds.
>> >>
>> >> Why not hide the directory. It's confusing.
>> >
>> >If you find yourself seeing ftp directory listings, put a piece of
>> >cardboard over your screen to hide them.
>>
>> That's like sweeping dirt under the carpet.
>
>Yeah, but the advice is only for people who don't know that things
>like release announcements and dustpans. They only know about ftp and
>brooms.

I know how to be tidy.

>> I think it makes more sense just not to publish a directory called
>> stable containing a release candidate.
>
>Of course, you're welcome to drop by libreoffice.org to volunteer your
>services in an effort to hide and unhide ftp directories and/or files on
>hundreds of mirrors simultaneously, which is all that's needed to
>solve the problem of people confused by ftp directory names.

No the problem is that someone renamed the release candidate [according to David Lipman]
and put it in a directory called stable. Messy.

I would assume that even if they don't change any code in rc3, they will change the about
page.

»Q«

unread,
Feb 11, 2012, 10:13:46 AM2/11/12
to
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 22:32:16 +0000
Not a problem.

> I would assume that even if they don't change any code in rc3, they
> will change the about page.

Yes, assumptions are what cause the confusion.


p00h the kat

unread,
Feb 11, 2012, 12:31:48 PM2/11/12
to
Why?

>> I would assume that even if they don't change any code in rc3, they
>> will change the about page.
>
>Yes, assumptions are what cause the confusion.

Not really. Lack of empathy with the end user causes the confusion. Making things
unfathomable instead of stupid simple. I see it all the time. It's endemic in IT. Bad
labeling, leaving the end user second guessing. If the label says stable, I would assume
it's final release. In this case it might be the final release. It might not. It's not
been announced, but it's there. Evidently, according to some bloke in a newsgroup, I
should check here, there, and everywhere that it's been released when I'm browsing an ftp
server. I don't recollect that being one of the ten commandments of the God's of the
Internet.

I'm just going to the supermarket to do a test. I'm going to put carrots in a black bag
which says bananas, and if anyone complains, I'm going to tell them they should have
checked that bananas were in season.

»Q«

unread,
Feb 11, 2012, 1:03:46 PM2/11/12
to
On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 17:31:48 +0000
p00h the kat <supe...@IPaddress.invalid> wrote:

> Evidently, according to some bloke in a newsgroup, I should check
> here, there, and everywhere that it's been released when I'm browsing
> an ftp server.

Why would you check "here, there, and everywhere" instead of just
looking at the main page of the website?

Despite how much you protest about how "unfathomable" ftp browsing has
become for you because of this alleged problem, you've got a fairly
simple solution in front of you.

> I don't recollect that being one of the ten commandments of the God's
> of the Internet.

If God has told you not to check the web to see what's released,
praying probably won't even help.

p00h the kat

unread,
Feb 11, 2012, 2:45:58 PM2/11/12
to
On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 12:03:46 -0600, »Q« <box...@gmx.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 17:31:48 +0000
>p00h the kat <supe...@IPaddress.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Evidently, according to some bloke in a newsgroup, I should check
>> here, there, and everywhere that it's been released when I'm browsing
>> an ftp server.
>
>Why would you check "here, there, and everywhere" instead of just
>looking at the main page of the website?

The version isn't on the main page of the website, so I would have to go here and there to
find it, but not everywhere.

>Despite how much you protest about how "unfathomable" ftp browsing has
>become for you because of this alleged problem, you've got a fairly
>simple solution in front of you.

ftp browsing is not "unfathomable" to me. Your defence of what appears to be poor practice
is. Shadows original comment said it all "Why put it in all the mirrors as a stable
release?"

You confirmed this practice has caused confusion before, and then proceeded to suggest
those who were confused before were simply whining. I don't know if some of them whined,
but Shadow asked a fair question.

I'm no closer to a good answer.

>> I don't recollect that being one of the ten commandments of the God's
>> of the Internet.
>
>If God has told you not to check the web to see what's released,
>praying probably won't even help.

Don Kirkman

unread,
Feb 11, 2012, 5:38:21 PM2/11/12
to
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:57:53 -0600, »Q« <box...@gmx.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:16:07 +0000
>p00h the kat <supe...@IPaddress.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 07:47:22 -0600, »Q« <box...@gmx.net> wrote:
>>
>> >It goes on the mirrors because when they are hoping to release it.
>> >It has to go out to mirrors before there's a release announcement,
>> >and before there's a release announcement they can change their
>> >minds.
>>
>> Why not hide the directory. It's confusing.

It's all confusing. I don't see any announcement or download link for
libre office 3.5 at all. The latest I could download was 3.4.5. Where
is 3.5?
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net

Ron May

unread,
Feb 11, 2012, 6:37:33 PM2/11/12
to
On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 12:03:46 -0600, »Q« <box...@gmx.net> wrote:

> Why would you check "here, there, and everywhere" instead of just
> looking at the main page of the website?

Because Pussy's not exactly the brightest bulb on the string of xmas
lights, but like Wile E. Coyote, he's a "genius" and "legend in his own
mind". Good to see you back, but you're wasting time and effort trying to
reason with the troll.

--
Ron May - may...@hotmail.com - Ubuntu/Vista Dual Boot
Registered Linux User #511161 - Ubuntu User #33236 (11.10)
ACF "Silver Lining": http://dl.dropbox.com/u/7365303/ACF/SL.html

p00h the kat

unread,
Feb 11, 2012, 7:17:39 PM2/11/12
to
On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 14:38:21 -0800, Don Kirkman <don...@charter.net> wrote:

>It's all confusing. I don't see any announcement or download link for
>libre office 3.5 at all. The latest I could download was 3.4.5. Where
>is 3.5?

Have faith, a new star will shine in the east, and it will be born in a stable.

Quaalude

unread,
Feb 12, 2012, 1:05:18 AM2/12/12
to
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 00:17:39 +0000, p00h the kat wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 14:38:21 -0800, Don Kirkman <don...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>It's all confusing. I don't see any announcement or download link for
>>libre office 3.5 at all. The latest I could download was 3.4.5. Where
>>is 3.5?
>
> Have faith, a new star will shine in the east, and it will be born in a stable.

I live in Kyrgyzstan.

p00h the kat

unread,
Feb 12, 2012, 5:49:07 AM2/12/12
to
On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 17:37:33 -0600, Ron May <may...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Because Pussy's not exactly the brightest bulb on the string of xmas
>lights, but like Wile E. Coyote, he's a "genius" and "legend in his own
>mind". Good to see you back, but you're wasting time and effort trying to
>reason with the troll.

Ah! I wondered how long it would be before the poisoned dwarf popped in and tried to
stifle debate.

I guess you have little to offer apart from an ad hominem a two year old could have
written, but still you have to chirp in and ruin things.

Anyhow, thanks for a perfect demonstration of one of the major reasons I am so pissed off
with the clique of posters here known collectively as 'the Goons'.
Message has been deleted

»Q«

unread,
Feb 12, 2012, 11:59:08 AM2/12/12
to
On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 14:38:21 -0800
Don Kirkman <don...@charter.net> wrote:

> It's all confusing. I don't see any announcement or download link for
> libre office 3.5 at all.

Is that more or less confusing than not seeing any announcement or
download link for LibreOffice 7.3?

Don Kirkman

unread,
Feb 12, 2012, 2:46:26 PM2/12/12
to
It wouldn't be, except the title for the entire thread thus far is
"LibreOffice 3.5 released."
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net

»Q«

unread,
Feb 12, 2012, 7:01:00 PM2/12/12
to
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 11:46:26 -0800
Don Kirkman <don...@charter.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:59:08 -0600, »Q« <box...@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 14:38:21 -0800
> >Don Kirkman <don...@charter.net> wrote:
> >
> >> It's all confusing. I don't see any announcement or download link
> >> for libre office 3.5 at all.
> >
> >Is that more or less confusing than not seeing any announcement or
> >download link for LibreOffice 7.3?
>
> It wouldn't be, except the title for the entire thread thus far is
> "LibreOffice 3.5 released."

Reading the thread might help -- one of the points of it is that you
can't tell what's been released and what's not by reading "release
announcements" made by Usenet posters.

Don Kirkman

unread,
Feb 13, 2012, 2:07:54 AM2/13/12
to
I understood that point, but never found a download link for a 3.5
final as the thread header implied. I followed the discussion about
the release candidate, but apparently that's all that's been released.

Thanks for the response, though--now I know I'm not missing anything.
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net

Taf®

unread,
Feb 13, 2012, 3:06:44 AM2/13/12
to
On 09/02/2012 20:17:04... Shadow (S...@dow.br) wrote :
> Not on main pages yet, but it's on the ftp servers:
>
> http://ftp.nluug.nl/office/libreoffice/libreoffice/stable/3.5.0/
>
> I'll wait for the portable version.
>
> []'s

Not yet officially released by TDF, anyway the "preliminary" (based on
*FINAL* RC3) portable version is available here:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/winpenpack/files/X-LibreOffice/releases/

--
ByE bYe By Taf® - WinPenPack Team Member - _PORTABLE_ OPEN SOURCE
PROGRAMS - http://www.winpenpack.com/en/news.php
A: Because it disturbs the logical flow of the message.
Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?
R: Perche' disturba il flusso logico della lettura
D: Perche' "postare sopra" e' tanto fastidioso?


p00h the kat

unread,
Feb 13, 2012, 8:22:27 AM2/13/12
to
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 18:01:00 -0600, »Q« <box...@gmx.net> wrote:

>one of the points of it is that you
>can't tell what's been released and what's not by reading "release
>announcements" made by Usenet posters.

Or trusting that files in the stable directory on a mirrored ftp server aren't just
renamed copies of rc's

Or freewarefiles a few days ago.

http://www.freewarefiles.com/LibreOffice_program_69307.html

Craig

unread,
Feb 13, 2012, 9:57:47 AM2/13/12
to
On 02/13/2012 12:06 AM, Taf® wrote:
> On 09/02/2012 20:17:04... Shadow (S...@dow.br) wrote :
>> Not on main pages yet, but it's on the ftp servers:
>>
>> http://ftp.nluug.nl/office/libreoffice/libreoffice/stable/3.5.0/
>>
>> I'll wait for the portable version.
>>
>> []'s
>
> Not yet officially released by TDF, anyway the "preliminary" (based
> on *FINAL* RC3) portable version is available here:
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/winpenpack/files/X-LibreOffice/releases/

Not sure what the rush is but 3.5.0 RC3 is only final if they don't
decide that one of the bugs they've already found is not a "blocker."
Here's an excerpt from the RC3 announce:

> Please be aware that LibreOffice 3.5.0 RC3 is not ready for
> production use, you should continue to use LibreOffice 3.4.5 for
> that.
>
> A note for Windows users: this Release Candidate will uninstall your
> current stable build and replace it. If you do not wish this to
> happen but still would like to test, you should follow the
> instructions for installing in parallel:
http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/l10n/msg04049.html


If anyone's interested in looking before leaping, this linky goes to
LibO's bugzilla (search string: libO 3.5.0 rc3)

http://goo.gl/ciGlc

hth,
--
-Craig
http://pricelesswarehome.org/

Taf®

unread,
Feb 13, 2012, 10:15:33 AM2/13/12
to
On 13/02/2012 15:57:47... Craig (netbu...@REMOVEgmail.com) wrote :
SNIP
> Not sure what the rush is but 3.5.0 RC3 is only final if they don't
> decide that one of the bugs they've already found is not a "blocker."
> Here's an excerpt from the RC3 announce:
>
>> Please be aware that LibreOffice 3.5.0 RC3 is not ready for
>> production use, you should continue to use LibreOffice 3.4.5 for
>> that.
>>
>> A note for Windows users: this Release Candidate will uninstall your
>> current stable build and replace it. If you do not wish this to
>> happen but still would like to test, you should follow the
>> instructions for installing in parallel:

Yes, You're right.
Anyway 3.5.0 is quite good in terms of stability (much more better than
erlier versions of 3.4.X). I'm in contact with an Italian member of
TDF. He told me he is using 3.5 (in his production) since RC1, without
big issues.

And... Portable version works like a charm in parallel with any
previous installed version. So is really good for testing.
No intrusion on windows registry!! You can use it and/or delete it from
your HD whenever you want.

Craig

unread,
Feb 13, 2012, 11:01:39 AM2/13/12
to
On 02/13/2012 07:15 AM, Taf® wrote:
> On 13/02/2012 15:57:47... Craig (netbu...@REMOVEgmail.com) wrote :
> SNIP
>> Not sure what the rush is but 3.5.0 RC3 is only final if they don't
>> decide that one of the bugs they've already found is not a "blocker."
>> Here's an excerpt from the RC3 announce:
>>
>>> Please be aware that LibreOffice 3.5.0 RC3 is not ready for
>>> production use, you should continue to use LibreOffice 3.4.5 for
>>> that.
>>>
>>> A note for Windows users: this Release Candidate will uninstall your
>>> current stable build and replace it. If you do not wish this to
>>> happen but still would like to test, you should follow the
>>> instructions for installing in parallel:
>
> Yes, You're right.
> Anyway 3.5.0 is quite good in terms of stability (much more better than
> erlier versions of 3.4.X). I'm in contact with an Italian member of TDF.
> He told me he is using 3.5 (in his production) since RC1, without big
> issues.
>
> And... Portable version works like a charm in parallel with any previous
> installed version. So is really good for testing.
> No intrusion on windows registry!! You can use it and/or delete it from
> your HD whenever you want.

Oh, yes!

3.5.0 is very good. I've been using it since RC2
(installed/Debian-Ubuntu) but there are bugs and some aren't exactly...
minor. I don't mind though, because RC is *pre-release*.

And that's all I'm trying to do, is remind people of that fact. The
reason 3.5.0 hasn't been announced is because it hasn't been released.

I can't tell you how many requests for support the various F/OSS
projects get from people who don't understand: Just because some
trigger-happy blogger says a release is ready, doesn't make it so.

Wait for the official announcement if you want *production-grade*
software. Otherwise, load up, use it and get ready to report bugs.

fwiw,
--
-Craig
http://pricelesswarehome.org/

Taf®

unread,
Feb 13, 2012, 11:23:56 AM2/13/12
to
On 13/02/2012 17:01:39... Craig (netbu...@REMOVEgmail.com) wrote :
SNIP
> 3.5.0 is very good. I've been using it since RC2 (installed/Debian-Ubuntu)
> but there are bugs and some aren't exactly... minor. I don't mind though,
> because RC is *pre-release*.
>
> And that's all I'm trying to do, is remind people of that fact. The reason
> 3.5.0 hasn't been announced is because it hasn't been released.
>
> I can't tell you how many requests for support the various F/OSS projects get
> from people who don't understand: Just because some trigger-happy blogger
> says a release is ready, doesn't make it so.
>
> Wait for the official announcement if you want *production-grade* software.
> Otherwise, load up, use it and get ready to report bugs.
>
> fwiw,

+1! :D

and, IMHO, also after official announcement of 3.5, the best version to
use for your *production-grade* is still 3.3.4 (less featured but more
stable) or, at least 3.4.5

both of them available here in their portable version:
http://www.winpenpack.com/en/download.php?list.37
...in parallel with old X-OOO 3.3.0

Craig

unread,
Feb 13, 2012, 11:30:21 AM2/13/12
to
On 02/13/2012 08:23 AM, Taf® wrote:
> On 13/02/2012 17:01:39... Craig (netbu...@REMOVEgmail.com) wrote :
> SNIP
>> 3.5.0 is very good. I've been using it since RC2
>> (installed/Debian-Ubuntu) but there are bugs and some aren't
>> exactly... minor. I don't mind though, because RC is *pre-release*.
>>
>> And that's all I'm trying to do, is remind people of that fact. The
>> reason 3.5.0 hasn't been announced is because it hasn't been released.
>>
>> I can't tell you how many requests for support the various F/OSS
>> projects get from people who don't understand: Just because some
>> trigger-happy blogger says a release is ready, doesn't make it so.
>>
>> Wait for the official announcement if you want *production-grade*
>> software. Otherwise, load up, use it and get ready to report bugs.
>>
>> fwiw,
>
> +1! :D
>
> and, IMHO, also after official announcement of 3.5, the best version to
> use for your *production-grade* is still 3.3.4 (less featured but more
> stable) or, at least 3.4.5

True, that.

>
> both of them available here in their portable version:
> http://www.winpenpack.com/en/download.php?list.37
> ...in parallel with old X-OOO 3.3.0

good to know.

thx,
--
-Craig
http://pricelesswarehome.org/

»Q«

unread,
Feb 13, 2012, 9:13:02 PM2/13/12
to
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 13:22:27 +0000
p00h the kat <supe...@IPaddress.invalid> wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 18:01:00 -0600, »Q« <box...@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> >one of the points of it is that you
> >can't tell what's been released and what's not by reading "release
> >announcements" made by Usenet posters.
>
> Or trusting that files in the stable directory on a mirrored ftp
> server aren't just renamed copies of rc's

Or a build with a blocker bug that they don't discover until just
before they would otherwise have announced release.

p00h the kat

unread,
Feb 14, 2012, 4:33:47 AM2/14/12
to
Or make it International law that all ftp clients have six sense subroutines.

»Q«

unread,
Feb 14, 2012, 10:57:18 AM2/14/12
to
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:33:47 +0000
p00h the kat <supe...@IPaddress.invalid> wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 20:13:02 -0600, »Q« <box...@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 13:22:27 +0000
> >p00h the kat <supe...@IPaddress.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 18:01:00 -0600, »Q« <box...@gmx.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >one of the points of it is that you
> >> >can't tell what's been released and what's not by reading "release
> >> >announcements" made by Usenet posters.
> >>
> >> Or trusting that files in the stable directory on a mirrored ftp
> >> server aren't just renamed copies of rc's
> >
> >Or a build with a blocker bug that they don't discover until just
> >before they would otherwise have announced release.
>
> Or make it International law that all ftp clients have six sense
> subroutines.

A warning not to use ftp if you don't know what you're doing should be
enough, at least until AI of clients gets better.

p00h the kat

unread,
Feb 14, 2012, 8:09:34 PM2/14/12
to
Agreed, but put it to them gently though, I wouldn't want the admin's at Libreoffice to
think we didn't appreciate their efforts.

»Q«

unread,
Feb 14, 2012, 9:23:56 PM2/14/12
to
On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 01:09:34 +0000
p00h the kat <supe...@IPaddress.invalid> wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:57:18 -0600, »Q« <box...@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:33:47 +0000
> >p00h the kat <supe...@IPaddress.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 20:13:02 -0600, »Q« <box...@gmx.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 13:22:27 +0000
> >> >p00h the kat <supe...@IPaddress.invalid> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 18:01:00 -0600, »Q« <box...@gmx.net> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >one of the points of it is that you
> >> >> >can't tell what's been released and what's not by reading
> >> >> >"release announcements" made by Usenet posters.
> >> >>
> >> >> Or trusting that files in the stable directory on a mirrored ftp
> >> >> server aren't just renamed copies of rc's
> >> >
> >> >Or a build with a blocker bug that they don't discover until just
> >> >before they would otherwise have announced release.
> >>
> >> Or make it International law that all ftp clients have six sense
> >> subroutines.
> >
> >A warning not to use ftp if you don't know what you're doing should
> >be enough, at least until AI of clients gets better.
>
> Agreed, but put it to them gently though, I wouldn't want the admin's
> at Libreoffice to think we didn't appreciate their efforts.

Now that they've got a release out, maybe they are all massed in
their irc channels trying to build clue-by-fours to swing at ftp users
full of erroneous assumptions. But I kinda hope they're working on
LibreOffice instead.

0 new messages