The new version 7.0 (currently 7.0.0.1RC) is showing an inscript “Personal Edition” on its start screen above two new buttons of doubtable value.
What is this supposd to tell me?
Is it just a joke?
(How to remove it?)
Thanks!
Hmmm. No criticism, of course. 
In the world of non-free software, a personal edition is a trimmed-down version of a program with limited functionality.
I wonder, where do those morons live, who try to enforce “personal edition” for a full-featured LibreOffice. On Mars? On Pluto?
Those morons try to make sure that full-featured LibreOffice is available for all and without any “free core” limitations, by just trying to lure some businesses to consider switching from standard (professionally unsupported) LibreOffice to LibreOffice derivatives (like Collabora Office or LibreOffice by CIB) created and provided by those TDF partners who contribute major parts. That way, those paying businesses would provide necessary basis for those partners to stay alive and continue their current mode of contributing.
I don’t think that “I hate this; no matter what the real world is, I know that there must be the way to solve all the possible problems, which doesn’t change my comfort zone”, especially expressed like that, is some constructive way of thinking.
no matter what the real world is
It seems to be the LO developers’ motto now.
Who cares that many people use the Breeze theme? Just remove it! Who cares that ‘personal edition’ is synonymous to ‘limited feature edition’ (why bother with a mere web search for the phrase in question)? Just put this label on! Yes, this is a model of constructive way of thinking.
Who cares that many people use the Breeze theme? Just remove it!
Do you think that picking an unrelated topic strengthens your point? It just makes it look carelesslly thought.
Who cares that ‘personal edition’ is synonymous to ‘limited feature edition’ (why bother with a mere web search for the phrase in question)? Just put this label on!
Did you look at the history of the label? It was chosen from a range of options; it was chosen exactly because it was likely to nudge some decision makers in enterprises in the proper direction (as personal is opposed to enterprise). It wasn’t set in stone, and is discussed; and now-preferred “community” was originally ruled out exactly because of the reason you refer to - because it reminds of those “community editions” that are cut down, functionally incomplete versions. What calls to some associations in you, may have different connotations in others.
Side remark while I prepare a long answer (instead of a comment) for this question which incidentally asks about tags: wouldn’t this be a meta question instead of common?
It is about policy not about a concrete problem occurring with the suite daily usage.
@ajlittoz: Thanks for caring.
However, even having read the answer you posted to the other topic, I’m not quite sure if I had tagged my question here meta in place of common having known it earlier. After all, I also posted it before I had read the Board statement @mikekaganski linked to, and one of my level2-questions was about how to remove the addressed label (and probably the buttons). One of my motivations: I simply disliked the “new things”. I also dislike lots of features of anything related to marketing and fund-raising, and … - and this may have a philosphical background, and is “multi-backgrounded” in fact.
I will tried to add the tag meta now (if this works), but it didn’t work.
Well, I found the right way meanwhile. Will forget it till next time.
@Lupp: your question is effectively hard to classify. For everything related to UI, it is a common question. For the ground debate, it is a meta question.
That said, my personal preference would be for status quo in the “free” edition and an added “enterprise-something” for the value-added edition. “Personal edition” has a somewhat negative impact for me. But again the “enterprise-something” should not be intrusive (I have not seen the v7.0 branding) at the point where it obliterates the logo or tag but should come as an additional information about support (a subtitle, not the main title), perhaps after LibreOffice is a modern … line or a modified This release was supplied by <value-added supporter> in the About LibreOffice dialog.
@ajlittoz: it’s a common idea: let the status quo to be, and go try solving your problems elsewhere. While not guaranteed to work, the current change is targeted at the place which is used by those who are the target group. I’t unwise to suggest “go to the backyard and stick your ads there”, when it’s known that people who should read it don’t walk there. It’s the same “I want my things to not change; you must do whatever you like, except touching my comfort zone - it’s your problem that my comfort zone covers exactly the problematic place”.
“Enterprise versions available!”, “…to come!”?
This would probably emphasize a different aspect less touching sensitive zones of the FLOSS community.
In the long run marketing beyond the “We are better!” (taken as a fact, not just a slogan) will always be problematic. After all we are living in a world where also top-commercial offers come as “free” services or at prices not at all reasonably calculated.
It’s becoming, no, is already, a fundamental problem of the “quo vadis” for “our” and the global economy.
@mikekaganski: I was thinking aloud without having seen the new version. From your remarks, I understand that this personal/enterprise branding appears in the splash logo (while LO is initialising). This does not change my argument. Any branding must not “deconsiderate” any edition, all the more if TDF guarantees that the core is the same in both versions. Psychologically, it is better to emphasise an addition (paid or available-on-demand support in business context) rather than let people think they have installed a restricted-feature app.
As I understand the point, the idea is to make explicit LO comes in DIY “System D” version and in value-added version for those willing to ensure 24/7 undisrupted service, eventually through paid third support.
That’s good and will clear ambiguities shown here in some questions. But it must not depreciate in any way the present product, all the more when you know to what usage “personal edition” is put by commercial software companies.
Well, in a sense I understand the reasons to consider additional ways of “fundraising”, even probably resorting to doubtable means. There is a real problem, anyway.
The more I appreciate that “the board” is capable of rethinking the topic, and of withdrawing a decision.
Very reputable!
However: Any kind of “branding” might not help much anyway. The central informations people -mainly deciders- need to get to induce and back their decision for LibreOffice, are
- that it isn’t just free of charge, but a contribution to freedom::independence in a way…
- that it isn’t only cheaper, but better. (Which must not only be a slogan, but a fact, of course!)
- that commercial competitors fight an unjust war by insufficient support for ODF…
- … and by their “struggle for incompatibility”, whether intentional or careless
- that these reasons justify acceptance of costs.
As a citizen of Munich I’m ashamed by the farce recently played here,
didn’t have time to read all comments and appendices …
but on a first glance … and a general thought about ‘free software’:
marketing is important for companies contributing to LO, BUT! it undermines LO’s freedom and acceptance in ‘the free community’,
companies should look to contribute good work, thus help for a good product, and then market ‘their special service’, not ‘the product’,
otherwise ‘the product’ will be pulled away from ‘being free’,
i have a bad feeling already that critic is sometimes more seen as a problem for marketing than as neccessary for improvement,
please! don’t add the bad feeling that LO will be a ‘private product’ over time,
yes, i did! read ‘will be free forever’ or similar, but that sounds a little like ‘we will never have a PKW-Maut’ in germany and other ‘big promises’ …
LO needs good developers, and these need some money to live, but there should be better ways!
LO needs good developers, and these need some money to live, but there should be better ways!
That is a wishful thinking. And that kind of thinking is like “you touch something dear to me; I don’t know how to fix problems you have, and I am not doing to invest into finding solutions; I just declare that there must be ways (without actually finding those), and now it’s your problems to find those ways. And I don’t care that you actually tried hard for 10 years to find those ways, and this attempt is just the result of trying and trying and trying to find a working compromise”…
@mikekaganski: not surprised about your thinking, and wouldn’t be surprised if you lead or contribute to a plan for a stepwise conversion of LO into private … i don’t say it is like that, just i wouldn’t be surprised …
about ‘10 years hard work’ … my personal impression - i won’t argue about it, it’s my personal impression - is that you as well spent more time into frustrating new contributors with your rough tone and telling them how stupid they are, as you yourself are very sensitive and take criticism of your work, LO, and your way very personally and very annoyed stifle meaningful discussions, as you and your team have not been able or didn’t try to solve some basic problems of calc in these 10 years …
it needs more people who ‘know the code’ and can work on it meaningfully, they won’t come voluntarily if they are welcomed and instructed in your tender way …
i strongly suggest to look for other ways than discrediting LO ‘standard’ as ‘personal’ …
@mikekaganski is an extremely valuable contributor here, and also a relevant developer, imo, who fixed a lot of bugs (e.g.).
Most of us aren’t in the same even mood all the year, and if JohnSUN and keme manage to be, this should be appreciated wiithout bashing others.
Concerning the ways efforts need to be backed financially there actually is a problem which won’t simply vanish due to our ignoring it. I probably shouldn’t use the term, but in fact MS and google (e.g.) are powerful enemies who can easily afford to hire 100 developers just to enforce everlasting incompatibility - and users mislead to believe the software by commercial competitors should be allowed to define the standards, will force TDF development to struggle for compatibility again instead of increasing their advantage in quality.
As long as not states, municipalities, any kind of non-commercial organizations and corporate bodies stop to feed the monster, it will be really hard for FLOSS.
hello @Lupp,
i agree with most of what you said,
as for the future and role of free software, i write privately because it’s getting too long and too political for this platform,
as far as @mikekaganski is concerned - whom i also appreciate very much, i learned a lot from him - i think whoever throws hard should also be able to catch hard, his ‘rough tone’ is already outstanding, and thus it should be allowed to tell him clearly if you dislike something he’s arguing for,
best regards,
b.