incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kay Schenk <>
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 22:24:44 GMT
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Dave Fisher <> wrote:
> I think the topic has change to one that is important to discuss in advance of graduation.
> On Sep 29, 2012, at 2:49 PM, Wolf Halton wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Marcus (OOo) <> wrote:
>>> Am 09/29/2012 10:27 PM, schrieb Wolf Halton:
> <snip>
>>>> 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%.
>>> Marcus
>> Me too, Marcus.
>> Also as Rob said, we might want to reconsider the phasing of "we
>> 'support' a given operating system," when what we can say accurately
>> is that we have tested AOO version 3.4.1 on some small number of
>> reference systems running the operating system with generally good
>> results. "Runs on Windows 7" is a more true statement than "Supports
>> Windows 7."
> These are all convenience binaries and with some effort anyone who wants to support any
operating system is always free to take the official source code and build their own "downstream"
or "package".

Well this would definitely be a different focus for OpenOffice, with
binaries the main form of client interaction in the past. I understand
where you're coming from with the emphasis on the source however.

> Getting this distinction into user friendly language is important. Maybe something like:
> "For the convenience of our users the Apache OpenOffice project (podling) provides installation
packages which Run on:
>         Windows 7, XP and Vista.
>         MacOSX 10. ....
>         Linux ....
> As an Open Source project the official release of Apache OpenOffice is a source package
including build instructions for the following platforms: ...."
>         Windows
>         MacOSX
>         Linux
>         FreeBSD

I'm looking at the pages for Apache Axis2C at the moment...

-- and --

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:

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.

> We can distinguish between project provided builds and those made by third parties. See
subversion's page. [1] Subversion only releases source. We can have similar rules for listing
packages that we have for consultants.
> Distribution could be similar. The PMC would need to be responsible for assuring that
packagers and distributors are appropriately using Apache trademarks. This would be checked
and would need to be reviewed periodically. I think that it will be likely that packagers
will be involved in the project so that oversight won't be difficult. Distributers and consultants
will need to be checked.
> It's a simple rule all around. Demonstrate understanding of the AL, respect Apache Trademarks
on your website, apply, and we will list you on an appropriate page in a non-discriminatory
> Regards,
> Dave
> [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 (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
>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>> (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
>>>>>>> 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
>> --
>> This Apt Has Super Cow Powers -
>> Open-Source Software in Libraries -
>> Advancing Libraries Together -
>> Apache Open Office Developer


"Just 'cause you got the monkey off your back
 doesn't mean the circus has left town."
                    -- George Carlin

View raw message