The big picture might be distorted if the details are not correctly portrayed. LibreOffice 3.6 is the minor revision and 3.5.7 is the maintenance release on the maintenance mode of the prior release. The former works okay, but NOT on Ubuntu 12.4 as a prior comment indicates; text documents were opening in two page (book) mode by default for some reason, with the first page over to the right of the computer window, with wasted space not to mention confusion even finding the thing at first, and no amount of purging the install and settings would clear it. Off to find OpenOffice 3.4, and unlike the article's note about incompatibly licensed libraries, how about .deb's that didn't add up to an install package; but a build from source corrected the unusable part of the code war. Then 3.4.1 installed in a download and update manner.
Yes, there are bugs, and yes there are bugs shared between the releases and some of which get introduced in a way that makes one wonder if the commercial competitors aren't sabotaging their open source rival. For instance, file picker dialogs (with hyperlinks) used to be non-modal so a user could refer to a lower window, but along about version 2.1 this was made modal, impeding the workflow. This did not correct a related problem which even became worse: copy and paste in Windows 2000 and at least one of my XP machines during a file picker dialog becomes a slow or fast kill (obviously a reference to released or uninitialized memory). Even such a trivial operation as dragging onto a spreadsheet is mismapped and the pointer eventually has to be below the cell in question (oh, the bug report is marked fixed file another report if it still happens...). And I do not feel like putting my programmer's hat on to fix these, or maybe do not have the time.
But as for the article, a thorough reading of the LibreOffice web pages would have avoided one error; and a run through of installing the software in the nature of fact checking would have shown up another. Which would have taken time too of course.