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 21:49:03 GMT
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Marcus (OOo) <marcus.mail@wtnet.de> wrote:
> Am 09/29/2012 10:27 PM, schrieb Wolf Halton:
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> 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."
>
>>>> 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