![]() ![]() What the author is doing here is making the same logical fallacy that he attempted to point out in the opposite position, except he's actually making it here. You’re just going to make most of the old mistakes again, and introduce some new problems that weren’t in the original version. > you probably don’t even have the same programming team that worked on version one, so you don’t actually have “more experience”. When I'm brought on to new projects, I can pretty quickly tell what's dysfunctional, why that is, and what parts can at least benefit from serious cleanup. Perhaps there's no reason to believe that you will certainly do a better job, but surely much of the time there are lessons to be learned even if the old team is entirely gone. > when you start from scratch there is absolutely no reason to believe that you are going to do a better job than you did the first time. Some of what he says makes no sense IMO, like: Slack did a rewrite and, whether you like them or not, they've been very successful. OBS was a full rewrite and they're killing it. Game engines and websites are rewritten all the time to varying degrees of success. Windows NT was effectively a rewrite and is the grandfather of every version of Windows that came after Windows ME. Second, the author leaves out any examples of where rewrites succeeded. Our problems are so abstract that few if any tools should be off-limits. Interesting blog post, but I'm unconvinced.įirst, there's no such thing as something you should "never" do, especially when it comes to code. Maybe the crashes are possible only on computers with less installed memory. I do not have any computer with less than 32 GB RAM. The fact that LibreOffice never crashes in this particular configuration, does not give much information about how it might behave on Fedora or Ubuntu, because LibreOffice uses a very large number of external libraries and the crashes could depend on their versions.īesides the dependence on the Linux distribution, there might be a dependence on the available memory. However, I compile LibreOffice from source, on a Gentoo Linux. ![]() It continues to have various annoying behaviors, which I consider bugs (however less than those that I consider bugs in MS Office), but it never crashes on any of my computers. I have been using LibreOffice daily for many years, since almost immediately after it forked from OpenOffice. In that case the crashes are probably caused by bugs that are difficult to reproduce on the developer computers. I believe that if regular crashes indeed exist, their cause must depend either on the Linux distribution and the combinations of libraries that are installed on the user computer or on the available memory size. So really, really, like the last 10 times you used LO, are you sure there was no problem at all? It doesn't help getting the software to a better state, nor does it inspire confidence to the new comers we oversell stability to. Which is a phenomenon I'm seeing a lot in the FOSS world: power users just don't see the bugs anymore because they work around them to easily and effortlessly, almost automatically. I donate to the project, I report bugs, I keep advising people to use it.īut still, either I'm incredibly unlucky, or people are just ignoring all the crashes and became blind to them. I keep reading people saying it's stable for them, but I've was using it already when it was called OOo, before we had docx support, before docx even existed. Hell, it crashed on me this week, on a 5 pages doc with images, text, one table and a few titles. I don't even use LO that much, and I'm panic saving in cycle every time I do because it crashes of me so often. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |