Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Hi :)
The difference is that 
1.  those other things basically work
2.  people are working on them
3.   new people are attracted to work on them

In complete contrast Base apparently has 
1.  NO-ONE working on it
2.  It doesn't work
3.  It's horribly complicated

Base is the only app that almost every question can only be solved by getting 
stuck into coding or extensively trouble-shooting and regression-testing 
dependencies.  Problems in other apps tend to be able to be solved by normal 
office users that may have no programming skills at all.  

It seems that we have 3 possible routes
1.  Ignore the problems and watch as Base continues to crumble away and lie to 
new users that we have a database program when we really don't.  

2.  Drop Base and be honest that we don't have an integrated  database program.  

3.  Step-up and manage.  

Regards from
Tom :)

From: Michael Meeks <>
Sent: Mon, 1 August, 2011 12:54:23
Subject: Re: [steering-discuss] Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access 
unacceptably slow

On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 19:26 +0100, Tom Davies wrote:
I think most of the companies i mentioned already employ devs to work on 
projects relevant to those organisations.  If they could each give one person 
half a week to Base

    Sure - but if they could each give one person have a week to: improving
the UI, accelerating import, fixing most annoying bugs, creating unit
tests, ... < insert any number of potential problems > - then we could
also make progress.

    However - instead of this, we have people complaining and trying to
tell other people what to do :-) That actually kills developer time,
because they have to respond to the griping by pointing out the obvious
lack of resources, the way that reality is shaped - and asking people to
be more constructive with their time - by actually getting involved
fixing things.

If some of those companies had direct control over half a dev

    So - if some individuals, who have direct control over their own work
schedule, could sit down and contribute then we'd get a long way too :-)
right ?

I don't think TDF can afford to wait until people get annoyed enough (as RMS 
suggests) because it's easier for people to just stay with other products and 
the rest of the Suite they come with.  A little work and leadership in taking 
Base forwards might even attract a lot of volunteers to it instead or runing 

the hills.  

    So - go for it ! you want to win eternal fame & glory, and find
yourself a well paid job hacking base: sign up now - get experienced
with the code, improve it, make noise about your success.

    Failing that - your resourcing concerns belong on a single list: the
discuss list.

Most of the co-operatives i have worked in have paid consultants, part-time 
workers, accountants, lawyers and all the rest when and where needed. 
Many of the ones that refused to do so folded or got absorbed.  

    Fine - so start a co-operative to work on LibreOffice, and fund these
guys to do the work you want to tell them to do, and to meet your
particular priorities. Failing that, do some fund raising yourself to
get an existing bespoke development company (say Lanedo) to do the work
for you.

    All the best,


--  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.