incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stuart Swales <stuart.swales.croftnu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Did we ever reach consensus on support for Windows 2000
Date Mon, 24 Sep 2012 11:06:09 GMT
On 23/09/2012 23:51, Kay Schenk wrote:
> 
> 
> On 09/16/2012 09:48 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Sep 16, 2012, at 11:38 PM, "Keith N. McKenna"
>> <keith.mckenna@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Rob Weir wrote:
>>>> On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Keith N. McKenna
>>>> <keith.mckenna@comcast.net> 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.
>>>
>>> The major disagreement I have with this Rob is that we publish FAQ's
>>> and installation documents on our official web site that lead people
>>> to believe that Windows 2000 is supported.
>>
>> Actually I don't think we disagree on this. At one point in time
>> (OpenOffice.org 3.3?) Windows 2000 was presumably tested and that is
>> why it is on the supported list. The fact that it remains on that list
>> is purely due to a kind of inertia: documentation in rest stays at
>> rest unless acted on by an outside force.
>>
>> So I agree that the website is out of synch with reality here and that
>> this is suboptimal. Two easy ways to fix: someone volunteers to do
>> some minimal testing with Windows 2000 to confirm basic operations, or
>> we remove it from the supported list.
>>
>> Of course even if removed it could come back once tested.
>>
>>> What does it say for us as a responsible project when we tell people
>>> that despite what we clearly show as a minimum requirement to use our
>>> software is really not what we meant. All that does is leave a bad
>>> taste in the consumers mouth that they most likely will tell there
>>> friends about. That to me is NOT the image we should project.
>>>
>>
>> If you feel strongly about this then you could propose to change the
>> website and if their are no objections after 72 hours assume lazy
>> consensus and go ahead and make the changes.
>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> That is all well and good Rob, but again that needs to be clear to
>>> people and not come as a surprise. I personally do not care one way
>>> or the other if 2000 is supported or not. My concern is with the
>>> image that we project to our user base. I am not a software engineer
>>> or coder so therefore not qualified to judge what is or is not
>>> supportable withing the code. That is why I brought this to the
>>> attention of the people that are qualified to get better information
>>> to present to our users.
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Again Rob that is all well and good, but why are we publishing to the
>>> world that Windows 2000 is the minimum Windows OS environment that
>>> our product can run in?
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>> "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 really do not know if we do our not Rob. What I do know is that we
>>> are telling users on our official web site that Windows 2000 is the
>>> minimum Revision of the OS that our product will run on.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Keith
>>>
>>>> -Rob
>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Keith
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
> 
> At least the following web pages need some attention:
> 
> * http://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/source/sys_reqs.html
> (not sure of navigation to this one)
> * http://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/source/sys_reqs_aoo34.html
> (linked from download)
> * http://www.openoffice.org/download/common/instructions.html
> (linked from main download)
> * http://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/source/sys_reqs_30.html
> (legacy download has this and probably still accurate)
> 
> Many installation docs on the wiki as well

Also, moving to Visual Studio 2010 will likely kill off running on
Windows 2000 (and Windows XP prior to SP2). The Visual C++ run-time
library now uses the EncodePointer function which was introduced in XP SP2.

-- 
Stuart Swales

Mime
View raw message