Re: Merging feature/commonsallayout branch

Hi Luke,

11/2/2016 3:54 AM, Luke Benes пишет:

Us, as in the LibreOffice, the software many of us volunteer to make as good as possible for 
everyone to enjoy.

Should the Chinese IT manager be embarrassed? Maybe, but coming from a First World nation, it’s 
hard for me to imaging supporting my family on $800/month, but at least I try to understand. Should 
my grandfather at almost 80 now be embarrassed? I don’t think so. Maybe I should have tried harder. 
I know he doesn’t use his Chromebook and never boots to Lubuntu.

The point is there are a lot of people out there for whatever reason still us XP. Despite what you 
keep suggesting, dropping XP won’t do anything to change them.



From: tlillqvist@gmail.com<mailto:tlillqvist@gmail.com> 
<tlillqvist@gmail.com><mailto:tlillqvist@gmail.com> on behalf of Tor Lillqvist 
<tml@iki.fi><mailto:tml@iki.fi>
Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2016 2:13 PM
To: slacka
Cc: libreoffice-dev
Subject: Re: Merging feature/commonsallayout branch



 Had we already dropped support for XP, it would have been an embarrassing
demonstration and reflected badly on us.

The only ones that should be embarrassed are those still running XP. Also, who are these "us" you 
are speaking for? --tml

While I agree that no one is to judge if those who are still running XP should be embarrassed or 
not, this specific consideration doesn't matter here.

Those who chose to stay with XP chose the software branch that isn't updated anymore. They made 
their choice between fixed set of functionality that is put into XP and evolving set of 
functionality that is being expanded in later versions. OS being platform, this choice inherently 
included also choosing to stay with software that supports that OS. And by making that decision, 
you imply that they suddenly put extra burden on "us" those who volunteer to put their effort into 
writing LO? Just by deciding to stay with aging OS, without any donation to this community or 
someone in person, someone magically creates an obligation on "us" and makes it twice as difficult 
for someone other to support and develop their software?

Instead, I see it another way: they had already made a choice to stay with one stalled branch (XP); 
they also chose to stay with another (their version of MSO); it's just natural that they can make 
the same decision about yet another software: say v.5.2 of LO. It does support XP, and is open and 
free as always; no one ever takes the right to use that from them.

--
Best regards,
Mike Kaganski