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 Thu, 27 Sep 2012 21:37:21 GMT
Am 09/27/2012 05:03 AM, schrieb Wolf Halton:
> I think it more feasible to edit the website than to test on win2k in any
> meaningful way.

I understand it in this way, that you suggest to delete the Windows 2000 
support from the webpages and therefore cancel any support somewhat 
silently. Is that right?

 > Are we claiming to support win98se? or winME?

No, IMHO this topic is already done and in the past.


> On Sep 24, 2012 7:06 AM, "Stuart Swales"<>
> wrote:
>> 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"
>>>> <>  wrote:
>>>>> Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> 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
>>>> ( 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
>>>>>> find even a single person who says they *will* test with Windows
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>> documentation on the site should change to reflect that.
>>>>>> Support is not determined by consensus wishes.  It is determined
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> "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:
>>> *
>>> (not sure of navigation to this one)
>>> *
>>> (linked from download)
>>> *
>>> (linked from main download)
>>> *
>>> (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

View raw message