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 Sat, 29 Sep 2012 21:31:24 GMT
Am 09/29/2012 10:27 PM, schrieb Wolf Halton:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Marcus (OOo)<>  wrote:
>> 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?
> We don't have to make it a secret.  We can announce on the support
> page that we are not supporting 12-year-old operating systems that are
> not supported by those operating-systems' own manufacturer.  It seems
> to me that the developers' time is better served focusing on newer
> features that work with more modern operating systems.  I do
> appreciate that there is some population still using Win2k.
> Wikipedia's web-server stats say in August 2012, 1.45% of their
> visitors used Windows other than XP, Vista or 7.  They are not giving
> an authoritative count of those users, but 1.45% of Wikipedia users is
> probably a large number.  I have seen in my own web stats that the
> number of pre-2001 Windows systems that announce themselves to the
> web-server are less than 1%. For my own web-stats that number is
> between 20 and 50 individual users.  All are precious, but the cost of
> supporting small populations is high, even in a time-only pro bono
> system like Apache OpenOffice.

Rob has posted the best arguments for this dicussion: numbers. ;-)

Due to the (not really suprising) low numbers I support the suggestion 
from Armin: drop everything below 1%.


>>> Are we claiming to support win98se? or winME?
>> No, IMHO this topic is already done and in the past.
>> Marcus
>>> 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
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>> it.  And if Microsoft does not make Windows 2000 CD's available
>>>>>>>> developers for testing, due to a lawsuit, then it is rather
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> and installation documents on our official web site that lead
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> why it is on the supported list. The fact that it remains on that
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> this is suboptimal. Two easy ways to fix: someone volunteers to do
>>>>>> some minimal testing with Windows 2000 to confirm basic operations,
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> friends about. That to me is NOT the image we should project.
>>>>>> If you feel strongly about this then you could propose to change
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>> support Windows 2000 in any meaningful way.
>>>>>>> That is all well and good Rob, but again that needs to be clear
>>>>>>> people and not come as a surprise. I personally do not care one
>>>>>>> or the other if 2000 is supported or not. My concern is with
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> our product can run in?
>>>>>>>> Do we have any evidence that users have successfully installed
>>>>>>>> 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.".
>>>>>>>> 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