Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2020 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Re: [board-discuss] Re: [tdf-members] Discussion about options available with marketing plan draft and timetable


On 2020/07/13 14:20, Telesto wrote:

The potential customer has to figure out who to contact themselves. Sending customers more or less 
in the dark. 

I'll grant that the LibO webpage on obtaining professional, paid
support, could be clearer. From my perspective, the biggest change to
that page that needs to be made, is which organisations provide paid
Tier 1 support to individuals.  ideally, there would be a matrix:

Column headings are:
* Type of Support;
* Tier 1;
* Tier 2;
* Tier 3;

Row headings are:
* Column Headings;
* Individual;
* Nano-business;
* Micro-business;
* Small business;
* Medium business;
* Large business;
* SOHO;
* SMB;
* Enterprise;

It probably would be useful for that page to provide definitions for
each of those terms.

The quality of the content at Collaboraoffice.com/ CIB.de isn't really convincing either, IMHO. 
And the sites are rather technical.

Personally, I wouldn't call any of the documents on any of the vendor
sites that I've looked at White Papers. (Comic Sans? Seriously? I've
forgotten which vendor's White Paper used that font.)

Part of the theory is that IT will be browsing the site, not the CEO.
Typically, the recommendations of IT are accepted, if the budget is
there.  If the budget isn't there, either the proposal will be dropped,
of somebody that the Board of Director knows, gets the contract, even
when it costs twenty times as much, delivers less than a tenth of what
IT requested, and none of the required specifications are met.

A CEO or Manager has to be convinced too,

That usually occurs after a _Request for Quotation_, _Invitation to
Tender_, or _Request for Proposal_, or similar document has been made.

The theory is that the suspect will provide contact data to the support
vendor, and the follow-up email/phone discussion will go through the
wants/needs/requirements of the suspect, before the any of the above
documents are issued. The requirements for the above document will list
exactly what the support vendor said that they could supply, usually
including some trivial thing that only that support vendor can supply.

Once the document is in house, then the CEO _might_ go through, and
approve/disapprove it. Sometimes, whatever the CEO, or whoever doesn't
like, can be negotiated around.

Also terms like L1 and L2 are not to evident. Are those (legally) universal terms.
So L1/L2 means exact the same thing for every software vendor worldwide?

I probably was the one that brought up those terms. For all practical
purposes L1 & L2 have the same meaning for every vendor who has anything
to with language, writing systems, and the like, around the world.

So even with LTS we end up with multiple LTS version offered by multiple vendors.

Take a look at the current situation.

I've forgotten which vendor offered support for which product.

Vendor #1 Does one major release a year, offering five years of support
for that release.  All currently supported released have updates, when
security flaws & bugs are found, and fixed. Typically, there are four
minor releases, and one or two intermittent releases each year. Included
in the contract, is software that enables rapid deployment of the
updates throughout the organisation. IT has to authorise the update, and
users are not impacted by it. This organisation specialists in
integrating LibO with the existing software, and workflow processes used
by the organisation.

Vendor #2 does two releases per year, and offers three years of support
for each release. Minor releases are done, when bugs are fixed, and
security flaws patched. This vendor also provides tools to enable the
organisation's IT people to deploy updates, when they (organisation IT)
are satisfied that it won't break anything.

Vendor # 3 does one major release every two years, offering somewhere
between six and ten years of support. Minor releases tend to be security
patches and bug fixes. Major releases introduce new functionality.
Whilst it encourages organisations to migrate to newer versions, they
will continue to support the product, for the lifetime of the initial
contract.  When renewing, you pretty much have to upgrade to the current
version --- about the only exception is when their techs can't get the
current version to work with whatever other ancient software the
customer is using.

All of these vendors call their product something along the lines of
"VendorName Office". They all acknowledge LibreOffice as being their
upstream.

Vendor # 4 simply takes the current version of LibreOffice, and
backports security fixes & bug fixes to it, for the duration of the LTS
contract that they signed with the customer. If you started with LibO
5.0.0.0 back September 2015, and had a ten year contract, you'll be
getting updates until 2025, but still on LibO 5.0.0.0.x, where "x" is
however many patches & updates have been done since then.)

AFAIK, this is the only LibO version that might cause confusion with
individuals and organisations other than Vendor # 4.

I doubt that any change made by TDF/LibO would add to the potential
plethora of LTS versions, and duration of support.

jonathon

-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscribe@documentfoundation.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

Context


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.