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 Thu, 27 Sep 2012 03:03:11 GMT
I think it more feasible to edit the website than to test on win2k in any
meaningful way.  Are we claiming to support win98se? or winME?

Wolf Halton
http://sourcefreedom.com
Apache developer:
wolfhalton@apache.org
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
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message