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: wolfhal...@apache.org On Sep 24, 2012 7:06 AM, "Stuart Swales" <stuart.swales.croftnu...@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.mcke...@comcast.net> wrote: > >> > >>> Rob Weir wrote: > >>>> On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Keith N. McKenna > >>>> <keith.mcke...@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 >
