You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> on 2012/10/01 00:24:44 UTC
Re: What do we say about Binaries, Packagers and Distributors? [Was
Re: Did we ever reach consensus on support for Windows 2000]
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> 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) <ma...@wtnet.de> 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"<st...@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"
>>>>>>>>> <ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Keith N. McKenna
>>>>>>>>>>> <ke...@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
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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 wolfhalton@apache.org
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"Just 'cause you got the monkey off your back
doesn't mean the circus has left town."
-- George Carlin
Re: What do we say about Binaries, Packagers and Distributors? [Was
Re: Did we ever reach consensus on support for Windows 2000]
Posted by Rob Weir <ra...@gmail.com>.
On Sep 30, 2012, at 6:57 PM, RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2012/10/1 Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>
>
>>
>> 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
>
> and Solaris?
>
>
>
>>
>> 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.
>
> +1. This is one of those situations on which trying to make things clearer
> can obscure everything so we must be very careful with the wording.
Right. We cannot assume that Apache "code words" have anything but
normal English meanings outside if Apache. We only confuse users,
journalists and others if we use specialized and subtle internal
concepts on public pages. We've seen this already with terms like
incubation and podling. A better way to handle this education task
is via blog posts where we can explain these things in greater depth.
In fact I just did a blog post on the importance of the source code.
-Rob
>
> Regards
> Ricardo
Re: What do we say about Binaries, Packagers and Distributors? [Was
Re: Did we ever reach consensus on support for Windows 2000]
Posted by RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com>.
2012/10/1 Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>
>
> 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
>
and Solaris?
>
> 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.
>
+1. This is one of those situations on which trying to make things clearer
can obscure everything so we must be very careful with the wording.
Regards
Ricardo