incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: What do we say about Binaries, Packagers and Distributors? [Was Re: Did we ever reach consensus on support for Windows 2000]
Date Sun, 30 Sep 2012 23:29:50 GMT
On Sep 30, 2012, at 6:57 PM, RGB ES <> wrote:

> 2012/10/1 Kay Schenk <>
>> Maybe at some point we could craft something similar like,
>> Apache OpenOffice project (podling) provides releases in two forms,
>> binaries which  run on:
>>         Windows 7, XP and Vista. [reasons why these particular
>> versions, state prerequisites]
>>         MacOSX 10. .... [reasons why these particular versions,
>> prerequisites]
>>         Linux .... [reasons for versions, prerequisities]
>> and source which can be used to build on:
>>         Windows
>>         MacOSX
>>         Linux
>>         FreeBSD
> and Solaris?
>> by following the provided build instructions [link here].
>> I think it may confuse some people to use wording like -- "For the
>> convenience of our users..." when all they've ever downloaded is
>> binaries. I wouldn't want them to think at some point we would abandon
>> the binaries. Most users think of OpenOffice as something they just
>> install and run.
> +1. This is one of those situations on which trying to make things clearer
> can obscure everything so we must be very careful with the wording.

Right. We cannot assume that Apache  "code words" have anything but
normal English meanings outside if Apache. We only confuse users,
journalists and others if we use specialized and subtle internal
concepts on public pages. We've seen this already with terms like
incubation and podling.   A better way to handle this education task
is via blog posts where we can explain these things in greater depth.
In fact I just did a blog post on the importance of the source code.


> Regards
> Ricardo

View raw message