incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: [patch] Removal of Windows build requirement on unicows.dll - issue 88652
Date Wed, 28 Sep 2011 19:13:37 GMT
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Marcus (OOo) <> wrote:
> Am 09/28/2011 01:39 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
>> <>  wrote:
>>> I don't think the vendor support lifetime for a consumer OS has bring the
>>> end of application support on that OS.  What is known is that there will
>>> be further service packs, maybe not even OS security patches, but it
>>> isn't
>>> as if they decay and die.  Many machines run much longer than the support
>>> life of the OS, and upgrades may not be feasible.
> +1
> I don't see a direct need to drop any OS support only because it is to old
> or it seems to be. To point to Microsoft and tell the users "they don't
> support it anymore, so we drop the support too" isn't a good argument.
> When we leave the baseline at Windows 2000 (or whereever it is at the
> moment) and tell the user we can give a "guarantee" (don't take this word to
> seriously ;-) ) for WinXP and newer, it should be OK. Then there is still a
> possibility to get it installed and started on Win2000.
>> The nice thing is a user of Windows 98 or 2000 can still download old
>> versions of OOo and run them.  And they can do that for free.  And
>> they always will be able to do this.
>> The question is not whether we retroactively support for older
>> versions of Windows.  They question is whether we maintain that
>> support going forward, in new releases of the product.
> Yes, and as long as there are no real technical problems I don't see a need
> to drop the support.
> If there *is already* or *will be* a technical limitation (e.g., API things
> or system integration) that is a hurdle for going on in supporting newer Win
> versions, then we have a good reason to drop the support for older versions.

In reality it works like this:  The moment we stop making the
proactive effort to test on a platform, the experience of users on
that platform will start to degrade.  It will degrade over time until
it totally fails.

So the question is not really about a deliberate effort to "drop"
support for older versions of Windows.  The question is whether there
are volunteers willing to test and patch the build to support older
versions of Windows.  If not, then that fact -- not our words -- will
determine what versions of Windows are actually supported.

> Otherwise IMHO not.
> Marcus
>>> Outgrowing the size of machine that an older OS runs on (and might be
>>> limited to) is a different matter, as is relying on API functions that
>>> are
>>> not supported that far back.
>>> I don't have an opinion about the Win2k versus Windows XP SP2+ choice for
>>> OOo.  I am just curious to know what the current platform boundaries are
>>> and might become for purposes of QA.
>>>  - Dennis
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Michael Stahl []
>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 15:50
>>> To:
>>> Subject: Re: [patch] Removal of Windows build requirement on unicows.dll
>>> - issue 88652
>>> On 27.09.2011 22:22, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
>>>> <>  wrote:
>>>>> What is the oldest Windows OS version that Apache OOo 3.4(-dev) will
>>>>> be supported on?  How does that compare with the oldest Windows OS
>>>>> version that the last stable release (3.3.0?) of is
>>>>> supported on?  (If there is a JRE dependency, that is another variant
>>>>> to consider.)
>>> AFAIK OOo 3.x Windows baseline is NT 5.0 (Windows 2000);
>>> AFAIK this OS version is no longer supported by the vendor.
>>>> I'd recommend supporting Windows XP and beyond.   XP is officially
>>>> supported by Microsoft until April 2014.   I'm certainly not making any
>>>> effort to maintain or test support for earlier versions.  Of course,
>>>> that doesn't prevent anyone else from testing and patching to support
>>>> earlier versions.
>>> no objection from me to raising the baseline to WindowsXP; IMHO trying to
>>> support an OS that the vendor doesn't support any more doesn't make
>>> sense.

View raw message