You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org> on 2016/07/13 02:17:36 UTC
Putting Windows First ( was RE: null)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hammam Alyamani [mailto:hammam@fastmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 00:36
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Spam (11.853):null
>
> Hello There
>
> How is everyone is doing? I hope you are all good.
>
> I have a suggestion, since there is a dedicated Mac OS version of
> OpenOffuce called NeoOffice, and since everyone is just switching to
> LibreOffice because it's where everyone is at now, why not you dedicate
> Apache OpenOffice fo work on windows exclusivley?!
[orcmid]
I assume you were referring to the fact that LibreOffice has very successful take-up as part of Linux distributions.
With regard to where Apache OpenOffice appeals, the following recent report is useful for consideration:
For the eight months since release of AOO 4.1.2 through 2016-06-30,
there are 29 million downloads, averaging about 850,000 per week down
to about 600,000 as we enter North American Summer in the last week.
Platform take-up is relatively constant:
87.5% for Windows,
7.8% for Macintosh, and
4.7% for all other distributions
So, if one gave priority to the community where AOO has the most reach, your suggestion is not out of line.
There is a conflict with the allegiance, interests, and skills of the AOO developers though. That essentially turns the above list on its head. The way AOO is constructed reflects that emphasis.
Suppose (1) There are enough developers having the capacity, capability, availability, and will to pair the Apache OpenOffice code base down to one devoted to modern Windows operation. Then (2) that would probably have to happen outside of the Apache OpenOffice project. The same goes for making an Apache OpenOffice that is completely a Java application.
Anyone could do that. Apache OpenOffice is open source, and either kind of fork is permissible. I suspect the barrier is that (1) cannot be satisfied.
- Dennis
>
> I don't see people complain about Neo being a Mac only package and
> making use of Mac capabilities, so why not do the same for Apache
> OpenOffice?
>
> Just a thought, and looking forward to hear from you soon. Thank you.
>
> --
> Best Regards
> Hammam Alyamani
> hammam@fastmail.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Putting Windows First ( was RE: null)
Posted by Patricia Shanahan <pa...@acm.org>.
On 8/31/2016 10:25 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Patricia Shanahan [mailto:pats@acm.org]
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 12:57
>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Putting Windows First ( was RE: null)
>>
> [ ... ]
> [orcmid]
>> I would like to suggest a way of squeezing out from between the rock and
>> hard place, and getting more developers:
>>
>> Separate out the Windows build process. Pick one of the common IDE's,
>> and create a project file that sets all environment variables for
>> Windows. Get as close as possible to the step-by-step build instructions
>> for Windows being:
>>
>> Check out the source from SVN.
>>
>> Open the project file in $IDE$.
> [orcmid]
>
> I don't think it is necessary to have an IDE commitment.
>
> Everything needed to do a build on Windows can be done with command-line tools that are part of the Windows SDK. Other externals needed for builds can be obtained in Windows versions. It is how Visual Studio works -- it spawns command-line operations.
>
> So long as the SVN Working copy has the correct ignore settings, once could then create projects if desired, and there might be a way to download a .zip of project files that could be expanded into a build slot in the Working copy. Although, since most of what is needed is in text and XML files, there is a way to do this at a lower level that doesn't require binaries in the source tree.
>
> That should get rid of the CygWin dependency for Windows builds and let the available tools work at their best.
>
> I think the bigger challenge is to be able to do incremental builds or even build libraries shared within AOO separately as a way to get problems of massive clean builds that take hours and don't help localize errors much. That's probably the way to build up the Windows build case anyhow.
>
> Note: If one is careful about the filepath rewriting business in CygWin, one can execute Windows command-line tools pretty easily, using .bat files as bridges -- .bat files execute properly in CygWin and MSys where I have tried it, and they will work correctly when used directly via cmd.exe. That is also how one gets environment variables set properly, etc. (One needs to get around a couple of glitches where CygWin and its cousins treat the environment as case sensitive but the Windows SDK tools do not.)
>
> And then there's [unit] testing to consider.
There are already unit tests that run in Eclipse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
RE: Putting Windows First ( was RE: null)
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patricia Shanahan [mailto:pats@acm.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 14:20
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Putting Windows First ( was RE: null)
>
> On 8/31/2016 10:25 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message----- From: Patricia Shanahan
> >> [mailto:pats@acm.org] Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 12:57 To:
> >> dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: Putting Windows First ( was
> >> RE: null)
> >>
> > [ ... ] [orcmid]
> >> I would like to suggest a way of squeezing out from between the
> >> rock and hard place, and getting more developers:
> >>
> >> Separate out the Windows build process. Pick one of the common
> >> IDE's, and create a project file that sets all environment
> >> variables for Windows. Get as close as possible to the step-by-step
> >> build instructions for Windows being:
> >>
> >> Check out the source from SVN.
> >>
> >> Open the project file in $IDE$.
> > [orcmid]
> >
> > I don't think it is necessary to have an IDE commitment.
> >
> > Everything needed to do a build on Windows can be done with
> > command-line tools that are part of the Windows SDK. Other externals
> > needed for builds can be obtained in Windows versions. It is how
> > Visual Studio works -- it spawns command-line operations.
>
> To me, direct use of command line tools feels like an awkward half-way
> step between the punch cards I used when I started programming, and the
> IDE's I use for most of my programming now.
[orcmid]
The advantage is that the command-line operation is agnostic about choice of IDE so long as one can use a chosen IDE successfully.
You can also build make projects in Visual Studio. You're likely to find Git integration built in and have to do more work for SVN, but it is not a lot more work.
I haven't tried Visual Code, but that might be a likely candidate too, without any of the heavyweight qualities of Visual Studio. It's integration is rather lightweight but I don't know how well it works with C++.
Probably the biggest integration points (apart from source control) are line matching of compiler error messages and also build messages to a window in the IDE. I assume that anything that uses the Windows SDK and command-line compiler will handle that.
I am not opposed to IDE integration, so long as it is on top of the Working check-out. When we end up making a choice of IDE in the SVN and the delivered buildable source releases, I think that won't fly. We will be forcing someone to operate with multiple tool sets and not their chosen one.
Let me put it this way. We want to be able to do quality Windows builds of Windows binaries. The fall-line case is to use a freely-available native Windows toolchain.
At the moment there are no IDE dependencies in the Apache OpenOffice system, and having folks be able to use IDEs is an orthogonal (but interacting) consideration. We need to enable that without imposing one, it seems to me.
In any case, we are a long way from any solution to this.
- Dennis
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Putting Windows First ( was RE: null)
Posted by Patricia Shanahan <pa...@acm.org>.
On 8/31/2016 10:25 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Patricia Shanahan
>> [mailto:pats@acm.org] Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 12:57 To:
>> dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: Putting Windows First ( was
>> RE: null)
>>
> [ ... ] [orcmid]
>> I would like to suggest a way of squeezing out from between the
>> rock and hard place, and getting more developers:
>>
>> Separate out the Windows build process. Pick one of the common
>> IDE's, and create a project file that sets all environment
>> variables for Windows. Get as close as possible to the step-by-step
>> build instructions for Windows being:
>>
>> Check out the source from SVN.
>>
>> Open the project file in $IDE$.
> [orcmid]
>
> I don't think it is necessary to have an IDE commitment.
>
> Everything needed to do a build on Windows can be done with
> command-line tools that are part of the Windows SDK. Other externals
> needed for builds can be obtained in Windows versions. It is how
> Visual Studio works -- it spawns command-line operations.
To me, direct use of command line tools feels like an awkward half-way
step between the punch cards I used when I started programming, and the
IDE's I use for most of my programming now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
RE: Putting Windows First ( was RE: null)
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patricia Shanahan [mailto:pats@acm.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 12:57
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Putting Windows First ( was RE: null)
>
[ ... ]
[orcmid]
> I would like to suggest a way of squeezing out from between the rock and
> hard place, and getting more developers:
>
> Separate out the Windows build process. Pick one of the common IDE's,
> and create a project file that sets all environment variables for
> Windows. Get as close as possible to the step-by-step build instructions
> for Windows being:
>
> Check out the source from SVN.
>
> Open the project file in $IDE$.
[orcmid]
I don't think it is necessary to have an IDE commitment.
Everything needed to do a build on Windows can be done with command-line tools that are part of the Windows SDK. Other externals needed for builds can be obtained in Windows versions. It is how Visual Studio works -- it spawns command-line operations.
So long as the SVN Working copy has the correct ignore settings, once could then create projects if desired, and there might be a way to download a .zip of project files that could be expanded into a build slot in the Working copy. Although, since most of what is needed is in text and XML files, there is a way to do this at a lower level that doesn't require binaries in the source tree.
That should get rid of the CygWin dependency for Windows builds and let the available tools work at their best.
I think the bigger challenge is to be able to do incremental builds or even build libraries shared within AOO separately as a way to get problems of massive clean builds that take hours and don't help localize errors much. That's probably the way to build up the Windows build case anyhow.
Note: If one is careful about the filepath rewriting business in CygWin, one can execute Windows command-line tools pretty easily, using .bat files as bridges -- .bat files execute properly in CygWin and MSys where I have tried it, and they will work correctly when used directly via cmd.exe. That is also how one gets environment variables set properly, etc. (One needs to get around a couple of glitches where CygWin and its cousins treat the environment as case sensitive but the Windows SDK tools do not.)
And then there's [unit] testing to consider.
- Dennis
>
> Build it.
>
> In particular, use of a UNIX-derived shell must not be required for
> Windows builds.
>
> In this vision, the core work would be done on Windows, using an IDE.
> There would still be a need for a small number of Linux etc. people to
> handle building for their environments, and to keep the Windows-based
> developers from building in unwarranted assumptions.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Putting Windows First ( was RE: null)
Posted by Patricia Shanahan <pa...@acm.org>.
On 7/17/2016 9:38 AM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
> Windows lacks many of the external libraries present on *nix (jpeg, zlib,
> curl, etc.), meaning we have to build them internally. They build using
> GNU autotools, which need a *nix shell like Cygwin. In other words, it
> isn't even only AOO that needs Cygwin, it's our dependencies as well.
I'll have to think about that aspect. It may be the case that we need
two stages to the build process, one that every Windows developer can
do, and another that is done by specialists with *nix shell experience.
Most work on AOO is not going to require changes to those libraries, so
a C++ programmer could do useful work using prepared copies of them
rather than building them from scratch.
> Also we need a portable build system, which any Visual Studio based
> solution isn't.
Why do we need a portable build system?
Whether the build system is portable or not makes no difference at all
to end users. It is not part of the AOO functionality. It is merely a
tool that may save costs by avoiding duplication of effort compared to
having separate build systems for different target environments.
In this case I suspect that the total cost of the portable build system
is far higher than the total cost of having separate build systems for
Windows and for the *nix derived operating systems. That total cost
includes every Windows C++ programmer who is a user of AOO, and has been
scared off contributing to AOO by the arcane and fragile build process.
>
> Damjan
>
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:52 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 07/13/2016 12:56 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>>> On 7/13/2016 10:38 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Damjan Jovanovic
>>>>> [mailto:damjan@apache.org]
>>> ..
>>>>> By the way, AOO code and build process are very *nix-centric,
>>>>> leading to Windows being such a pain to develop for, that we would
>>>>> gain more by dropping Windows support, than by dropping all other
>>>>> platforms ;-).
>>>> [orcmid]
>>>>
>>>> Yes. I already made the point that, from the perspective of
>>>> developers, development of Windows is very contorted and development
>>>> for Linux is a pleasure. It was done that way for the convenience of
>>>> Linux-oriented developers. It creates an awful on-ramp for
>>>> cultivation of new developers.
>>>>
>>>> The question: How does ceasing support for Windows serve the 87% of
>>>> our current user base? The technical act is within the power of the
>>>> PMC to determine, and release managers could force the outcome. In my
>>>> estimation, the consequences would be quite terrible.
>>>>
>>>> We may be "stuck between a rock and a hard place."
>>>>>
>>>>> Damjan
>>>
>>> I would like to suggest a way of squeezing out from between the rock
>>> and hard place, and getting more developers:
>>>
>>> Separate out the Windows build process. Pick one of the common IDE's,
>>> and create a project file that sets all environment variables for
>>> Windows. Get as close as possible to the step-by-step build
>>> instructions for Windows being:
>>>
>>> Check out the source from SVN.
>>>
>>> Open the project file in $IDE$.
>>>
>>> Build it.
>>>
>>> In particular, use of a UNIX-derived shell must not be required for
>>> Windows builds.
>>>
>>> In this vision, the core work would be done on Windows, using an IDE.
>>> There would still be a need for a small number of Linux etc. people to
>>> handle building for their environments, and to keep the Windows-based
>>> developers from building in unwarranted assumptions.
>>
>> Patricia --
>>
>> I think this approach was actually started as a Capstone Project in
>> 2013. You might want to have a look at the information in:
>>
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/branches/capstone2013/
>>
>>
>> --
>> --------------------------------------------
>> MzK
>>
>> "Time spent with cats is never wasted."
>> -- Sigmund Freud
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Putting Windows First ( was RE: null)
Posted by Damjan Jovanovic <da...@apache.org>.
Windows lacks many of the external libraries present on *nix (jpeg, zlib,
curl, etc.), meaning we have to build them internally. They build using
GNU autotools, which need a *nix shell like Cygwin. In other words, it
isn't even only AOO that needs Cygwin, it's our dependencies as well.
Also we need a portable build system, which any Visual Studio based
solution isn't.
Damjan
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:52 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 07/13/2016 12:56 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> > On 7/13/2016 10:38 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message----- From: Damjan Jovanovic
> >>> [mailto:damjan@apache.org]
> > ..
> >>> By the way, AOO code and build process are very *nix-centric,
> >>> leading to Windows being such a pain to develop for, that we would
> >>> gain more by dropping Windows support, than by dropping all other
> >>> platforms ;-).
> >> [orcmid]
> >>
> >> Yes. I already made the point that, from the perspective of
> >> developers, development of Windows is very contorted and development
> >> for Linux is a pleasure. It was done that way for the convenience of
> >> Linux-oriented developers. It creates an awful on-ramp for
> >> cultivation of new developers.
> >>
> >> The question: How does ceasing support for Windows serve the 87% of
> >> our current user base? The technical act is within the power of the
> >> PMC to determine, and release managers could force the outcome. In my
> >> estimation, the consequences would be quite terrible.
> >>
> >> We may be "stuck between a rock and a hard place."
> >>>
> >>> Damjan
> >
> > I would like to suggest a way of squeezing out from between the rock
> > and hard place, and getting more developers:
> >
> > Separate out the Windows build process. Pick one of the common IDE's,
> > and create a project file that sets all environment variables for
> > Windows. Get as close as possible to the step-by-step build
> > instructions for Windows being:
> >
> > Check out the source from SVN.
> >
> > Open the project file in $IDE$.
> >
> > Build it.
> >
> > In particular, use of a UNIX-derived shell must not be required for
> > Windows builds.
> >
> > In this vision, the core work would be done on Windows, using an IDE.
> > There would still be a need for a small number of Linux etc. people to
> > handle building for their environments, and to keep the Windows-based
> > developers from building in unwarranted assumptions.
>
> Patricia --
>
> I think this approach was actually started as a Capstone Project in
> 2013. You might want to have a look at the information in:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/branches/capstone2013/
>
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "Time spent with cats is never wasted."
> -- Sigmund Freud
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: Putting Windows First ( was RE: null)
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On 07/13/2016 12:56 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> On 7/13/2016 10:38 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message----- From: Damjan Jovanovic
>>> [mailto:damjan@apache.org]
> ..
>>> By the way, AOO code and build process are very *nix-centric,
>>> leading to Windows being such a pain to develop for, that we would
>>> gain more by dropping Windows support, than by dropping all other
>>> platforms ;-).
>> [orcmid]
>>
>> Yes. I already made the point that, from the perspective of
>> developers, development of Windows is very contorted and development
>> for Linux is a pleasure. It was done that way for the convenience of
>> Linux-oriented developers. It creates an awful on-ramp for
>> cultivation of new developers.
>>
>> The question: How does ceasing support for Windows serve the 87% of
>> our current user base? The technical act is within the power of the
>> PMC to determine, and release managers could force the outcome. In my
>> estimation, the consequences would be quite terrible.
>>
>> We may be "stuck between a rock and a hard place."
>>>
>>> Damjan
>
> I would like to suggest a way of squeezing out from between the rock
> and hard place, and getting more developers:
>
> Separate out the Windows build process. Pick one of the common IDE's,
> and create a project file that sets all environment variables for
> Windows. Get as close as possible to the step-by-step build
> instructions for Windows being:
>
> Check out the source from SVN.
>
> Open the project file in $IDE$.
>
> Build it.
>
> In particular, use of a UNIX-derived shell must not be required for
> Windows builds.
>
> In this vision, the core work would be done on Windows, using an IDE.
> There would still be a need for a small number of Linux etc. people to
> handle building for their environments, and to keep the Windows-based
> developers from building in unwarranted assumptions.
Patricia --
I think this approach was actually started as a Capstone Project in
2013. You might want to have a look at the information in:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/branches/capstone2013/
--
--------------------------------------------
MzK
"Time spent with cats is never wasted."
-- Sigmund Freud
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Putting Windows First ( was RE: null)
Posted by Patricia Shanahan <pa...@acm.org>.
On 7/13/2016 10:38 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Damjan Jovanovic
>> [mailto:damjan@apache.org]
..
>> By the way, AOO code and build process are very *nix-centric,
>> leading to Windows being such a pain to develop for, that we would
>> gain more by dropping Windows support, than by dropping all other
>> platforms ;-).
> [orcmid]
>
> Yes. I already made the point that, from the perspective of
> developers, development of Windows is very contorted and development
> for Linux is a pleasure. It was done that way for the convenience of
> Linux-oriented developers. It creates an awful on-ramp for
> cultivation of new developers.
>
> The question: How does ceasing support for Windows serve the 87% of
> our current user base? The technical act is within the power of the
> PMC to determine, and release managers could force the outcome. In my
> estimation, the consequences would be quite terrible.
>
> We may be "stuck between a rock and a hard place."
>>
>> Damjan
I would like to suggest a way of squeezing out from between the rock and
hard place, and getting more developers:
Separate out the Windows build process. Pick one of the common IDE's,
and create a project file that sets all environment variables for
Windows. Get as close as possible to the step-by-step build instructions
for Windows being:
Check out the source from SVN.
Open the project file in $IDE$.
Build it.
In particular, use of a UNIX-derived shell must not be required for
Windows builds.
In this vision, the core work would be done on Windows, using an IDE.
There would still be a need for a small number of Linux etc. people to
handle building for their environments, and to keep the Windows-based
developers from building in unwarranted assumptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
RE: Putting Windows First ( was RE: null)
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Damjan Jovanovic [mailto:damjan@apache.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 00:31
> To: Apache OO <de...@openoffice.apache.org>; Dennis Hamilton
> <de...@acm.org>
> Subject: Re: Putting Windows First ( was RE: null)
>
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 4:17 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> <dennis.hamilton@acm.org
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Hammam Alyamani [mailto:hammam@fastmail.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 00:36
> > > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> > > Subject: Spam (11.853):null
> > >
> > > Hello There
> > >
> > > How is everyone is doing? I hope you are all good.
> > >
> > > I have a suggestion, since there is a dedicated Mac OS version of
> > > OpenOffuce called NeoOffice, and since everyone is just switching to
> > > LibreOffice because it's where everyone is at now, why not you
> dedicate
> > > Apache OpenOffice fo work on windows exclusivley?!
> > [orcmid]
> >
> > I assume you were referring to the fact that LibreOffice has very
> > successful take-up as part of Linux distributions.
> >
> > With regard to where Apache OpenOffice appeals, the following recent
> > report is useful for consideration:
> >
> > For the eight months since release of AOO 4.1.2 through 2016-06-30,
> > there are 29 million downloads, averaging about 850,000 per week
> down
> > to about 600,000 as we enter North American Summer in the last
> week.
> > Platform take-up is relatively constant:
> >
> > 87.5% for Windows,
> > 7.8% for Macintosh, and
> > 4.7% for all other distributions
> >
> > So, if one gave priority to the community where AOO has the most
> reach,
> > your suggestion is not out of line.
> >
> > There is a conflict with the allegiance, interests, and skills of the
> AOO
> > developers though. That essentially turns the above list on its head.
> The
> > way AOO is constructed reflects that emphasis.
> >
> > Suppose (1) There are enough developers having the capacity,
> capability,
> > availability, and will to pair the Apache OpenOffice code base down to
> one
> > devoted to modern Windows operation. Then (2) that would probably
> have to
> > happen outside of the Apache OpenOffice project. The same goes for
> making
> > an Apache OpenOffice that is completely a Java application.
> >
> >
> Can't we drop support for any operating system though a vote?
[orcmid]
Yes, the Apache OpenOffice Project could resolve a couple of
things, such as
1. To stop providing binaries for particular platforms
2. To stop providing binaries and language tools for
particular localizations
This could be done by [PROPOSAL] on this list with adequate
time to determine lazy consensus.
I suspect it would be difficult to achieve consensus. There
could be a subsequent [VOTE] if it appeared that there could be
sufficient agreement in the community. Even though only PMC
votes would be binding, the nature and extent of -1 votes has
to be given serious consideration.
>
> Also how would this generalize to a Java version?
[orcmid]
There can certainly be (2) a fork that morphs the codebase of the fork into a Java version. There would still be the issues of (1) above. I think that would in essence be a new product. It might better serve multiple platforms but it is a significant effort and I don't think it can be a drop-in replacement for Apache OpenOffice in any practical time frame, if ever. So it would have to mature separately. That also separates the risk of barriers to successful creation of something like an AOO4Java. (I have difficulty imagining that we could successfully suspend releases for the current binaries and move to Java directly and agreement to do that is likely even more difficult than dropping support for a popular platform.)
>
> By the way, AOO code and build process are very *nix-centric, leading to
> Windows being such a pain to develop for, that we would gain more by
> dropping Windows support, than by dropping all other platforms ;-).
[orcmid]
Yes. I already made the point that, from the perspective of developers, development of Windows is very contorted and development for Linux is a pleasure. It was done that way for the convenience of Linux-oriented developers. It creates an awful on-ramp for cultivation of new developers.
The question: How does ceasing support for Windows serve the 87% of our current user base? The technical act is within the power of the PMC to determine, and release managers could force the outcome. In my estimation, the consequences would be quite terrible.
We may be "stuck between a rock and a hard place."
>
> Damjan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Putting Windows First ( was RE: null)
Posted by Damjan Jovanovic <da...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 4:17 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamilton@acm.org
> wrote:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hammam Alyamani [mailto:hammam@fastmail.com]
> > Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 00:36
> > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> > Subject: Spam (11.853):null
> >
> > Hello There
> >
> > How is everyone is doing? I hope you are all good.
> >
> > I have a suggestion, since there is a dedicated Mac OS version of
> > OpenOffuce called NeoOffice, and since everyone is just switching to
> > LibreOffice because it's where everyone is at now, why not you dedicate
> > Apache OpenOffice fo work on windows exclusivley?!
> [orcmid]
>
> I assume you were referring to the fact that LibreOffice has very
> successful take-up as part of Linux distributions.
>
> With regard to where Apache OpenOffice appeals, the following recent
> report is useful for consideration:
>
> For the eight months since release of AOO 4.1.2 through 2016-06-30,
> there are 29 million downloads, averaging about 850,000 per week down
> to about 600,000 as we enter North American Summer in the last week.
> Platform take-up is relatively constant:
>
> 87.5% for Windows,
> 7.8% for Macintosh, and
> 4.7% for all other distributions
>
> So, if one gave priority to the community where AOO has the most reach,
> your suggestion is not out of line.
>
> There is a conflict with the allegiance, interests, and skills of the AOO
> developers though. That essentially turns the above list on its head. The
> way AOO is constructed reflects that emphasis.
>
> Suppose (1) There are enough developers having the capacity, capability,
> availability, and will to pair the Apache OpenOffice code base down to one
> devoted to modern Windows operation. Then (2) that would probably have to
> happen outside of the Apache OpenOffice project. The same goes for making
> an Apache OpenOffice that is completely a Java application.
>
>
Can't we drop support for any operating system though a vote?
Also how would this generalize to a Java version?
By the way, AOO code and build process are very *nix-centric, leading to
Windows being such a pain to develop for, that we would gain more by
dropping Windows support, than by dropping all other platforms ;-).
Damjan
Re: Putting Windows First ( was RE: null)
Posted by Hammam Alyamani <ha...@fastmail.com>.
Hello Dennis
Thanks a lot for taking time and explaining in your message.
--
Best Regards
Hammam Alyamani
hammam@fastmail.com
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016, at 02:17, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hammam Alyamani [mailto:hammam@fastmail.com]
> > Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 00:36
> > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> > Subject: Spam (11.853):null
> >
> > Hello There
> >
> > How is everyone is doing? I hope you are all good.
> >
> > I have a suggestion, since there is a dedicated Mac OS version of
> > OpenOffuce called NeoOffice, and since everyone is just switching to
> > LibreOffice because it's where everyone is at now, why not you dedicate
> > Apache OpenOffice fo work on windows exclusivley?!
> [orcmid]
>
> I assume you were referring to the fact that LibreOffice has very
> successful take-up as part of Linux distributions.
>
> With regard to where Apache OpenOffice appeals, the following recent
> report is useful for consideration:
>
> For the eight months since release of AOO 4.1.2 through 2016-06-30,
> there are 29 million downloads, averaging about 850,000 per week down
> to about 600,000 as we enter North American Summer in the last week.
> Platform take-up is relatively constant:
>
> 87.5% for Windows,
> 7.8% for Macintosh, and
> 4.7% for all other distributions
>
> So, if one gave priority to the community where AOO has the most reach,
> your suggestion is not out of line.
>
> There is a conflict with the allegiance, interests, and skills of the AOO
> developers though. That essentially turns the above list on its head.
> The way AOO is constructed reflects that emphasis.
>
> Suppose (1) There are enough developers having the capacity, capability,
> availability, and will to pair the Apache OpenOffice code base down to
> one devoted to modern Windows operation. Then (2) that would probably
> have to happen outside of the Apache OpenOffice project. The same goes
> for making an Apache OpenOffice that is completely a Java application.
>
> Anyone could do that. Apache OpenOffice is open source, and either kind
> of fork is permissible. I suspect the barrier is that (1) cannot be
> satisfied.
>
> - Dennis
> >
> > I don't see people complain about Neo being a Mac only package and
> > making use of Mac capabilities, so why not do the same for Apache
> > OpenOffice?
> >
> > Just a thought, and looking forward to hear from you soon. Thank you.
> >
> > --
> > Best Regards
> > Hammam Alyamani
> > hammam@fastmail.com
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org