incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: Did we ever reach consensus on support for Windows 2000
Date Sun, 16 Sep 2012 21:35:06 GMT
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 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.

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.

> 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.

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".


> Regards
> Keith

View raw message