On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Marcus (OOo) <[email protected]> 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"<[email protected]> >> 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" >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Rob Weir wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Keith N. McKenna >>>>>>> <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]
