Howard Coles Jr.
dhcolesj at gmail.com
Thu Dec 14 04:09:11 UTC 2006
On Wednesday 13 December 2006 8:07 pm, Bry Melvin wrote:
> --- Art Alexion <art.alexion at verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Wednesday 13 December 2006 12:53, Howard Coles
> > Jr. wrote:
> > > Considering all the "unstable" messages around
> > 2.0.4 I was just wondering
> > > if there was going to be a port of 2.1 back to
> > Edgy and Dapper?
> > > it would really be nice I think.
> > Michael Holdeman successfully installed in
> > /usr/local
> > I doubt it will make it to Dapper of Edgy as the
> > versions are locked. It may
> > make it to a backport repo.
> > --
> businesses using Ubuntu/Kubuntu have no interest in
> any version but dapper. If Canonical is serious about
> "LTS" versions then we should probably see a version
> for Dapper. I can understand skipping Edgy but if they
> really want to keep the Business users that have moved
> over from Novell and Red Hat they need to keep the
> Office suite somewhat current,
> It's unsettling to see answers to problems with dapper
> answered by references to upgrading to a six month
> version. Without the 3year/five year version we would
> have migrated to Novell here. We and I'm sure others
> put Dapper in with idea to keep it at least two years,
> Testing and updating every six monts is too much. Like
> many businesses we need to carry over some windows
> apps. Basic installation of what we need per machine
> would be 200 USD for Red Hat 60 for the latest Novell
> assuming Xen would work as needed,100 if we still
> needed Crossover. and 40 USD for Ubuntu plus
> Crossover. Even adding more paid support for Ubuntu
> comes out the winner for a small business. But this
> won't work if backports aren't kept up of the LTS
In a way I see your point, however, businesses usually don't want to upgrade
versions of office suites any more often than they want to upgrade the OS.
The only reason they may want 2.1 would be if it fixes bugs they're fighting,
has a filter they need, etc. AND it has no major interface changes that would
require retraining. So, I too would expect a 2.1 backport in the works to
cover those with the kind of bugs it fixes, and other such things. I would
also, on a normal basis simply expect minor bug fixes, and security patches
to be realeased for the LTS version but no major changes.
Also with so many complaining of problems, I'd assume this would be a no
brainer if OOo 2.1 fixes bugs. I know I want it 'cause I'm tired of my word
processing session just disappearing.
Howard Coles Jr.
More information about the kubuntu-users