incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Wolf Halton <wolf.hal...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Did we ever reach consensus on support for Windows 2000
Date Sat, 29 Sep 2012 20:27:07 GMT
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Marcus (OOo) <marcus.mail@wtnet.de> 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.




>
>> 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"<stuart.swales.croftnuisk@gmail.com>
>> 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"
>>>>> <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



-- 
This Apt Has Super Cow Powers - http://sourcefreedom.com
Open-Source Software in Libraries - http://FOSS4Lib.org
Advancing Libraries Together - http://LYRASIS.org
Apache Open Office Developer wolfhalton@apache.org

Mime
View raw message