On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Dave Fisher <[email protected]> wrote: > I think the topic has change to one that is important to discuss in advance > of graduation. > > On Sep 29, 2012, at 2:49 PM, Wolf Halton wrote: > >> On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Marcus (OOo) <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Am 09/29/2012 10:27 PM, schrieb Wolf Halton: >>>> >>>> > > <snip> > >>>> 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." > > These are all convenience binaries and with some effort anyone who wants to > support any operating system is always free to take the official source code > and build their own "downstream" or "package".
Well this would definitely be a different focus for OpenOffice, with binaries the main form of client interaction in the past. I understand where you're coming from with the emphasis on the source however. > > Getting this distinction into user friendly language is important. Maybe > something like: > > "For the convenience of our users the Apache OpenOffice project (podling) > provides installation packages which Run on: > Windows 7, XP and Vista. > MacOSX 10. .... > Linux .... > As an Open Source project the official release of Apache OpenOffice is a > source package including build instructions for the following platforms: ...." > Windows > MacOSX > Linux > FreeBSD I'm looking at the pages for Apache Axis2C at the moment... http://axis.apache.org/axis2/c/core/index.html -- and -- http://axis.apache.org/axis2/c/core/docs/installationguide.html Maybe at some point we could craft something similar like, Apache OpenOffice project (podling) provides releases in two forms, binaries which run on: Windows 7, XP and Vista. [reasons why these particular versions, state prerequisites] MacOSX 10. .... [reasons why these particular versions, prerequisites] Linux .... [reasons for versions, prerequisities] and source which can be used to build on: Windows MacOSX Linux FreeBSD by following the provided build instructions [link here]. I think it may confuse some people to use wording like -- "For the convenience of our users..." when all they've ever downloaded is binaries. I wouldn't want them to think at some point we would abandon the binaries. Most users think of OpenOffice as something they just install and run. > > We can distinguish between project provided builds and those made by third > parties. See subversion's page. [1] Subversion only releases source. We can > have similar rules for listing packages that we have for consultants. > > Distribution could be similar. The PMC would need to be responsible for > assuring that packagers and distributors are appropriately using Apache > trademarks. This would be checked and would need to be reviewed periodically. > I think that it will be likely that packagers will be involved in the project > so that oversight won't be difficult. Distributers and consultants will need > to be checked. > > It's a simple rule all around. Demonstrate understanding of the AL, respect > Apache Trademarks on your website, apply, and we will list you on an > appropriate page in a non-discriminatory way. > > Regards, > Dave > > [1] http://subversion.apache.org/packages.html > > >>> >>>>>> 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] > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MzK "Just 'cause you got the monkey off your back doesn't mean the circus has left town." -- George Carlin
