incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Marcus (OOo)" <>
Subject Re: Did we ever reach consensus on support for Windows 2000
Date Sun, 16 Sep 2012 23:14:17 GMT
Am 09/16/2012 11:35 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Keith N. McKenna
> <>  wrote:
>> Greetings All;
>> I was going through FAQ's and other pages on the AOO (incubating) site and
>> noticed that many still are showing that we support Windows 2000 as a
>> baseline operating system. I though I remembered some discussions a while
>> back on this list around that subject and thought we had decided that we
>> would no longer do that due to lack of testing resources.
> IMHO, "support" is determined by what we do, not by what we say.  If
> no one is testing with Windows 2000, then it is hard to say we support
> it.  And if Microsoft does not make Windows 2000 CD's available to
> developers for testing, due to a lawsuit, then it is rather difficult
> for anyone who wants to test.  Not impossible, but they would need to
> get access to CD's or ISO images through unofficial means.
> Of course, we could have a dozen people say we *should* support
> Windows 2000.  But should does not mean anything.  We really need to
> find even a single person who says they *will* test with Windows 2000
> and fix any problems that arise.  Until that happens we don't really
> support Windows 2000 in any meaningful way.
>> I went back through the archives and did find a number of threads but they
>> never seemed to reach a definite conclusion. I we are going to continue to
>> support it all well and good, but if we cannot then all FAQ's and other
>> documentation on the site should change to reflect that.
> Support is not determined by consensus wishes.  It is determined by
> someone actually doing it.

That's right.

> Do we have any evidence that users have successfully installed and
> used AOO 3.4.x on Windows 2000?  If it works, we might just list it

I've still a VM with this. But what all should be tested to truthfully 
write "tested with Windows 2000"? ;-)

> "not a tested configuration, but some users report success.".  In
> other words, between "tested and supported" and "known to be broken"
> is a middle territory where it is "use at your own risk".

I guess that this will be needed for the next version we will release.


View raw message