From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=93scar_Fuentes?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Windows emacs-25.1 i686 vs x86_64? Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2016 19:26:46 +0100 Message-ID: <87d1i8bh21.fsf@wanadoo.es> References: <6e2cffe5-942b-48d4-9ed5-ef39803bcd30@googlegroups.com> <87mvhgsf21.fsf@russet.org.uk> <8360o4monq.fsf@gnu.org> <87vaw4gq0j.fsf@russet.org.uk> <83oa1vlnkk.fsf@gnu.org> <87d1iba6od.fsf@russet.org.uk> <83ins2jq88.fsf@gnu.org> <87eg2p8swx.fsf@russet.org.uk> <831sypjmst.fsf@gnu.org> <83wpggip8j.fsf@gnu.org> <87pom8bn7q.fsf@wanadoo.es> <83r36oimof.fsf@gnu.org> <87lgwwbkzo.fsf@wanadoo.es> <83pom8ikre.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1478456886 16404 195.159.176.226 (6 Nov 2016 18:28:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 18:28:06 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.0.50 (gnu/linux) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Nov 06 19:28:02 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1c3SAI-0000Mj-Mw for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 06 Nov 2016 19:27:34 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46100 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c3SAL-00041r-N5 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 06 Nov 2016 13:27:37 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58130) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c3SAG-00041b-4k for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Nov 2016 13:27:32 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c3SAB-0002OB-DQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Nov 2016 13:27:32 -0500 Original-Received: from [195.159.176.226] (port=49115 helo=blaine.gmane.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c3SAB-0002Mw-77 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Nov 2016 13:27:27 -0500 Original-Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1c3S9t-0005zR-EV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Nov 2016 19:27:09 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 29 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:snfEDPTQs1eHhHVaYV0uQtDOsyk= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 195.159.176.226 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:209219 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> >> Windows 9X is a virus magnet and reservoir. >> > >> > Which has nothing to do with Emacs, even if it's true. >> >> As long as Emacs officially supports Windows 9x, it is implicitly >> endorsing it. Because the basis of the GNU project is political and >> moral, it is important that we send the correct messages to our users. > > I think you missed something I said here: > > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2016-11/msg00155.html If the "something" is If it's okay on any other Windows system, it's okay on Windows 9X. then that's precisely what I'm disagreeing with. Having to figure out how to make Emacs work on Windows 9X (*) for allowing some hypothetical users (**) to keep shooting themselves on the foot seems like something we could stop doing at this moment. * Accessing reliable information about which APIs work on Windows 9X is not easy at all. ** How many bug reports came from Windows 9X users on the last, say, 8 years?