Is LO 7 discontinued?

[mikekaganski]

Every release may contain “security” fixes - for undiscovered issues. We do not mark any release as “not containing security fixes”. There is lots of fuzzing testing going on, and we fix problems that would possibly be exploitable, even without knowing that. But sometimes we release an out-or-order special security release - for discovered security issues.

But that’s not a problem. If you tried to understand, you would learn that:

1. You should never install X.Y.0 to X.Y.4; you always use X.Y.5, X.Y.6, X.Y.7 - which are usually the only three releases of a branch in half a year. So you would only need to install three releases in the time when the newer branch had 5 (.0 to .4, all with much more bugs).
2. You never install X.Y.Z.1, unless it is announced as a release on the main page (and on the main download page). So you usually skip half of work of non-releases - which we do not release, do not announce as such.

You did four times more work than needed.

[ToddAndMargo]

24.2 had two releases in July

24.2.5.1/02-Jul-2024
24.2.5.2/11-Jul-2024

That is not every three months. Is it your point that even though these two July release contain security patches, that since they are not a published general release, that I should not have to apply them? Do I misunderstand you?

PCI-DSS-v4-0-SAQ-C-r1
6.3.3 All system components are protected from known vulnerabilities by installing applicable security patches/updates as follows:
• Critical or high-security patches/updates (identified according to the risk ranking process at Requirement 6.3.1) are installed within one month of release.

If you are hiding these vulnerabilities by not placing them in the three month release, then I have not choice by to install the twice monthly updates. Or find some other software to use. (I like LO and would not like to see it removed.)

[mikekaganski]

You do not understand at all.

24.2.5.1/02-Jul-2024 was not a release. It was a release candidate, never announced as a release. It never appeared on download page in a box like

and only when it was internally tested, and some problems fixed, the 24.2.5 got a second build, and was released as 24.2.5 (and then the picture shown above appeared for it, and the release announcement came).

Who told you, that in this project, what you see on that archive page, is only the releases? It is not advertised as the primary download source. It is used as archive for everything.

[ToddAndMargo]

I am looking at
Index of /libreoffice/old
last modified column.

[ToddAndMargo]

@mikekaganski

You do not understand at all.

24.2.5.1/02-Jul-2024 was not a release.

Your point is that is is not a general release? If it contains patches for 'known vulnerabilities", I have to install it. If it is just a testing release, there is nothing stopping you from tagging it as alpha, beta, or release candidate. This would be a lot easier if patches for “known vulnerabilities” were annotated as such. Those are the only ones I am required to install.

[mikekaganski]

@ToddAndMargo

there is nothing stopping you from tagging it as alpha, beta, or release candidate

just as well as nothing stopping you from reading announcements, release plan, official download page, etc.; and nothing stopping you from stopping telling others what to do in their project that provides the product for free.

Yes these are release candidates. This is their official name. Alphas and betas are only for pre-X.Y.0. And release candidates are never meant for use in production, only for testing. If you confuse them for releases, you do not understand.

[ToddAndMargo]

@mikekaganski

Who told you, that in this project, what you see on that archive page, is only the releases? It is not advertised as the primary download source. It is used as archive for everything.

The announcement of the 24 release stated that they were rolling releases, meaning that you got patches quicker. That is a good thing, most of the time. I have not got the time to support rolling releases on my customer’s PCI systems. The regular customer, I am fine with it. They never upgrade anything anyway, unless I specifically request it. (They have had them fingers burned too many times by M$ updates, so they are afraid of everyone else’s updates as well. Not a founded fear.)

[mikekaganski]

@ToddAndMargo

The announcement of the 24 release stated that they were rolling releases

No. There was no change in release plan, in support strategy, in everything. There was no such announcement. You misread/misunderstood/misremember. Only number changed from 7 to 24.

[ToddAndMargo]

@mikekaganski

24.2.5.1/02-Jul-2024 was not a release. It was a release candidate, never announced as a release. It never appeared on download page in a box like

Another place to look for the latest release would be
https://downloadarchive.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/old/latest/win/x86_64/
I see they are already on 24.8

[mikekaganski]

Sigh. it’s useless to talk to you: I already wrote, that downloadarchive is for everything - and you repeat that parrot’s song about “releases” there. There was not a single release for 24.8, only the first release candidate. And when 24.8.0 (likely it will be 24.8.0.3, from experience it usually takes two rejected release candidates for initial release) is out, a sane enterprise won’t use it in prod, will use only 24.2.(5,6,7), until there will be 24.8.5.

[ToddAndMargo]

@mikekaganski

release candidate

They should be tagged “rc” in their release number, like every other open source release.

[mikekaganski]

We owe you nothing. Zero. It is not your business how we name our builds. Is this clear?

[ToddAndMargo]

@mikekaganski

You misread/misunderstood/misremember. Only number changed from 7 to 24.

On 1/31/24 04:14, Italo Vignoli wrote:
[tdf-announce] LibreOffice 24.2 Community available for all operating systems
For users who don’t need the latest features and prefer a version that has undergone more testing and bug fixing, The Document Foundation maintains the LibreOffice 7.6 family, which includes several months of back-ported fixes. The current release is LibreOffice 7.6.4 Community.

Hmmmmm. 7 is renamed 24? Do not think that is what Italo meant.

[mikekaganski]

@ToddAndMargo

Do not think that is what Italo meant

You do not think? That shows. There was an ESC decision about the version names; there was a public announcement. There was also a similar announcement about 7.6 release, with the same wording except 7.6 stood for 24.2, and 7.5 stood for 7.6…

https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2023-May/090403.html
https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2023-June/090430.html

[ToddAndMargo]

@mikekaganski

You do not think? That shows.

please refrain from personal insults

There was an ESC decision about the version names; there was a public announcement. There was also a similar announcement about 7.6 release, with the same wording except 7.6 stood for 24.2, and 7.5 stood for 7.6…

Sorry, I missed that eMail. I did read Italo eMail thought. Things must have changed. Would you give me a link to the new method please. Was it eMailed out? The subject line would help me find it.

[mikekaganski]

LibreOffice 24.2 Community available for all operating systems - The Document Foundation Blog is the same text as in that mail that you quote. It tells:

… LibreOffice 24.2 Community, the new major release of the free, volunteer-supported office suite and the first to use the new calendar-based numbering scheme (YY.M)

The links to the ESC discussion are above.

And this is 7.6 announcement: Announcement of LibreOffice 7.6 Community - The Document Foundation Blog

LibreOffice 7.6 Community is available from: www.libreoffice.org/download/. Minimum requirements for proprietary operating systems are Microsoft Windows 7 SP1 and Apple macOS 10.15. LibreOffice Technology-based products for Android and iOS are listed here: www.libreoffice.org/download/android-and-ios/.

For users who don’t need the latest features, and prefer a version that has undergone more testing and bug fixing, The Document Foundation maintains the LibreOffice 7.5 family, which includes some months of back-ported fixes. The current version is LibreOffice 7.5.5 Community.

[ToddAndMargo]

Thank you (ten characters)

[fpy]

<sarcasmisticaly>

@ToddAndMargo

Does Libre Office or does not Libre Office

@mikekaganski

We do not

wow, seems it’s no more this famous user-to-user ask site here !!!???
</sarcasmisticaly>

---

---

more seriously (and focused), any idea wether the “still” version was intentionally dropped from the download page ?
(the question was also raised for the French site here Téléchargement de Libreoffice version stable)
and I’d be quite tempted to reopen Task #3712: Fresh - Still retirement - Infrastructure - The Document Foundation Redmine)

[Wanderer]

@ToddAndMargo

This would be a lot easier if patches for “known vulnerabilities” were annotated as such. Those are the only ones I am required to install.

Maybe check this resource:
https://www.libreoffice.org/about-us/security/advisories/

[mikekaganski]

@fpy

any idea wether the “still” version was intentionally dropped from the download page ?

Is LibreOffice only for technology enthusiasts, early adopters, power users and business users?

I use LibreOffice 7.6.7.2. currently. When I installed it, the download page looked different. Now it only has two options: business users (which sends to a confusing page), and LibreOffice 24.2.5, which is said to be simultaneously “ideal for home users, students and non-profits”, and also "If you’re a technology enthusiast, early adopter or power user, this version is for you!" This is confusing. I’m just a home user who wants a version that is stable, doesn’t use experimental features or w…

(Sidenote: the sarcasm is unwarranted. It is OK for me to answer as a developer. But it’s wrong expectation, when askers hope to address developers here (because they will see their expectations failed): my presence here is an “accident”, and I do it not because I’m a developer, but because I hope to help people who need more technical help / more deep insight. @erAck and @Regina are also regulars here, but not many others. That’s what my usual “user-to-user” idea is about.)