From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: MS-Windows build broken in Fmake_network_process Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 09:50:53 +0200 Organization: Organization?!? Message-ID: <87ochxj9ya.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> References: <83634jglab.fsf@gnu.org> <831vf7ge57.fsf@gnu.org> <83y6hfeyzw.fsf@gnu.org> <83vdcig87f.fsf@gnu.org> <87k4sywpvv.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <83tys2fbxs.fsf@gnu.org> <87hbo1iubm.fsf@home.jasonrumney.net> <83ljddg0w9.fsf@gnu.org> <4BAE867D.3030404@gmail.com> <4BAE9ED4.6070900@t-online.de> <87tys12sdy.fsf@telefonica.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1270541091 26510 80.91.229.12 (6 Apr 2010 08:04:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 08:04:51 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Apr 06 10:04:50 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nz3mD-0005C0-5k for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 06 Apr 2010 10:04:49 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60721 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Nz3mC-00088R-NW for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 06 Apr 2010 04:04:48 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Nz3Z6-0002QM-MJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 06 Apr 2010 03:51:16 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=59321 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Nz3Z1-0002OJ-6n for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 06 Apr 2010 03:51:15 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nz3Yx-0002Ss-VN for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 06 Apr 2010 03:51:11 -0400 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:56123) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nz3Yx-0002Sg-8e for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 06 Apr 2010 03:51:07 -0400 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nz3Yv-0002wf-50 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 06 Apr 2010 09:51:05 +0200 Original-Received: from p5b2c2260.dip.t-dialin.net ([91.44.34.96]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 06 Apr 2010 09:51:05 +0200 Original-Received: from dak by p5b2c2260.dip.t-dialin.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 06 Apr 2010 09:51:05 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 44 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: p5b2c2260.dip.t-dialin.net X-Face: 2FEFf>]>q>2iw=B6, xrUubRI>pR&Ml9=ao@P@i)L:\urd*t9M~y1^:+Y]'C0~{mAl`oQuAl \!3KEIp?*w`|bL5qr,H)LFO6Q=qx~iH4DN; i"; /yuIsqbLLCh/!U#X[S~(5eZ41to5f%E@'ELIi$t^ Vc\LWP@J5p^rst0+('>Er0=^1{]M9!p?&:\z]|;&=NP3AhB!B_bi^]Pfkw User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.92 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:CmloEaYvsITbNHdt7pOdyaapAaw= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:123250 Archived-At: Richard Stallman writes: > If they run a 15 year old trashy OS, do they really demand the latest > and greatest Emacs? (which is a very fat application for such machines) > > Our decision has nothing to do with their "demands" -- and I doubt > they ever tried to make any "demands" on us. > > If they would rather run the latest Emacs, then making the latest > Emacs run on their platform is a nice thing to do. > > However, it is not a high priority for us, because supporting any > version of Windows is not a high priority for us. We have no > commitment to support Windows 9, or Windows 7, or any version of > Windows. People work on this if they want to do it, and they can > choose which platforms to support. Starting with Windows XP, Microsoft reserves the right to remotely install software on your computer (including DRM), without recompensation should they destroy your installation. Also starting with Windows XP, your system installation is rendered inoperative if you move it to another computer, such as after hardware failure. Basically, Microsoft did a lot to promote "plug&play", then made sure that you can't reap the benefits. For that reason, people with some interest in the rights to their own computer may keep an older Windows installation around for software that can't run on free platforms. Usually off-net since Microsoft does no security updates to those versions. Since you can't acquire any of those old Windows versions anymore, it is more or less chance which version you kept around. There is more or less a progression in the extensiveness with which the Microsoft EULA forces you to abandon your rights and your own hardware to their whim. So with quite a number of versions, people might say "this is where I draw the line with regard how much I want my personal rights be trampled on". It probably does not mean much with regard for supporting Emacs, however: I don't think that people use older Windows versions except for isolated applications. -- David Kastrup