* Re: Windows emacs-25.1 i686 vs x86_64?
2016-11-07 14:43 ` Richard Stallman
@ 2016-11-07 15:15 ` Daniel Colascione
2016-11-07 15:26 ` Phillip Lord
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 0 replies; 50+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Colascione @ 2016-11-07 15:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: rms, Paul Eggert; +Cc: eliz, emacs-devel, phillip.lord
On 11/07/2016 06:43 AM, Richard Stallman wrote:
> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
>
> > In GNU projects, we typically stop worrying about an underlying
> > platform when its original supplier stops supporting it. For
> > example, Emacs no longer worries about IRIX because SGI stopped
> > supporting IRIX in 2013.
>
> In the GNU Project, the question that matters, for a system version of
> no particular importance to us (such as any version of Windows), is
> whether users care about that version enough to maintain support for
> it. If they do that, we may as well not delete their code
> unless it is getting in the way rather badly.
>
> If we have no direct evidence about whether users care about a certain
> version, by default we can suppose that they won't care about a
> version that is no longer being maintained. But that's not the
> criterion, just a default way to guess.
>
> Given that Windows is so widely used, and that so many users stick to
> old versions of it, it is plausible to me that millions of people
> still use Windows 98. Maybe tens or hundreds of millions.
>
> That number may still be growing. ISTR that even a few years ago
> people were still installing unauthorized copies of Windows 98 on PCs,
> because Microsoft made it harder to install subsequent Windows
> versions. It would not surprise me if Windows 98 was installed on
> millions of new PCs this year.
>
What data would, in principle, convince you otherwise?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 50+ messages in thread* Re: Windows emacs-25.1 i686 vs x86_64?
2016-11-07 14:43 ` Richard Stallman
2016-11-07 15:15 ` Daniel Colascione
@ 2016-11-07 15:26 ` Phillip Lord
2016-11-08 13:53 ` Richard Stallman
2016-11-07 16:34 ` Paul Eggert
2016-11-07 18:49 ` Perry E. Metzger
3 siblings, 1 reply; 50+ messages in thread
From: Phillip Lord @ 2016-11-07 15:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Richard Stallman; +Cc: eliz, Paul Eggert, emacs-devel
Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
>
> > In GNU projects, we typically stop worrying about an underlying
> > platform when its original supplier stops supporting it. For
> > example, Emacs no longer worries about IRIX because SGI stopped
> > supporting IRIX in 2013.
>
> In the GNU Project, the question that matters, for a system version of
> no particular importance to us (such as any version of Windows), is
> whether users care about that version enough to maintain support for
> it. If they do that, we may as well not delete their code
> unless it is getting in the way rather badly.
The original issue that came up here is not about code but about
documentation. My desire is to have the readme a) as short as possible
and b) not make Emacs appear unmaintained.
> If we have no direct evidence about whether users care about a certain
> version, by default we can suppose that they won't care about a
> version that is no longer being maintained. But that's not the
> criterion, just a default way to guess.
>
> Given that Windows is so widely used, and that so many users stick to
> old versions of it, it is plausible to me that millions of people
> still use Windows 98. Maybe tens or hundreds of millions.
>
> That number may still be growing. ISTR that even a few years ago
> people were still installing unauthorized copies of Windows 98 on PCs,
> because Microsoft made it harder to install subsequent Windows
> versions. It would not surprise me if Windows 98 was installed on
> millions of new PCs this year.
All this may be true, but it does not help. We have no direct evidence
about whether users care about a certain version. Unless we have a way
of gaining that evidence, we are left with supposition.
What we do know is that we get very few bug reports for Windows 98/95.
The only thing that I could think of further to get more information
would be to check the download logs; does ftp.gnu.org store user agent
strings or equivalent. This would at least give us some evidence about
Windows 9x -- also Windows XP.
Incidentally, even if Emacs is supported on these platforms, I have
not tested the binary downloads on any of them, nor do I have the
capability to do so.
Phil
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 50+ messages in thread
* Re: Windows emacs-25.1 i686 vs x86_64?
2016-11-07 15:26 ` Phillip Lord
@ 2016-11-08 13:53 ` Richard Stallman
2016-11-08 14:52 ` Phillip Lord
0 siblings, 1 reply; 50+ messages in thread
From: Richard Stallman @ 2016-11-08 13:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Phillip Lord; +Cc: eliz, eggert, emacs-devel
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> What we do know is that we get very few bug reports for Windows 98/95.
That suggests we don't have many users on those systems.
We could put in code in the next release to display a message,
"If you use GNU Emacs on Windows 95 or Windows 98,
please send email to <some email address>. We are thinking
of deleting the support for those systems in a future Emacs version."
> The only thing that I could think of further to get more information
> would be to check the download logs; does ftp.gnu.org store user agent
> strings or equivalent. This would at least give us some evidence about
> Windows 9x -- also Windows XP.
That is a good idea.
--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 50+ messages in thread
* Re: Windows emacs-25.1 i686 vs x86_64?
2016-11-08 13:53 ` Richard Stallman
@ 2016-11-08 14:52 ` Phillip Lord
2016-11-08 15:31 ` Eli Zaretskii
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 50+ messages in thread
From: Phillip Lord @ 2016-11-08 14:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Richard Stallman; +Cc: eliz, eggert, emacs-devel
Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
>
> > What we do know is that we get very few bug reports for Windows 98/95.
>
> That suggests we don't have many users on those systems.
>
> We could put in code in the next release to display a message,
> "If you use GNU Emacs on Windows 95 or Windows 98,
> please send email to <some email address>. We are thinking
> of deleting the support for those systems in a future Emacs version."
We don't need "If you use..." -- Emacs should know OS it is using.
I am happy to add this to Emacs-26 (perhaps as an addition to the splash
screen). For "<some email address>" we could use a debbugs email. This
would then provide us a generalized mechanism for deprecation of OS
support. The only difficulty I can see is finding a copy of Win 98 on
which to test this.
Can I suggest we add 9x, and Windows XP into the list for Emacs-26?
> > The only thing that I could think of further to get more information
> > would be to check the download logs; does ftp.gnu.org store user agent
> > strings or equivalent. This would at least give us some evidence about
> > Windows 9x -- also Windows XP.
>
> That is a good idea.
I will investigate and see if this data is available.
Phil
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 50+ messages in thread* Re: Windows emacs-25.1 i686 vs x86_64?
2016-11-08 14:52 ` Phillip Lord
@ 2016-11-08 15:31 ` Eli Zaretskii
2016-11-09 16:50 ` Phillip Lord
2016-11-09 7:00 ` martin rudalics
2016-11-15 10:26 ` Phillip Lord
2 siblings, 1 reply; 50+ messages in thread
From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2016-11-08 15:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Phillip Lord; +Cc: eggert, rms, emacs-devel
> From: phillip.lord@russet.org.uk (Phillip Lord)
> Cc: eggert@cs.ucla.edu, eliz@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2016 14:52:44 +0000
>
> Can I suggest we add 9x, and Windows XP into the list for Emacs-26?
My main development machine runs Windows XP, so if you want to drop
support for it, you should ask me to resign first.
Btw, there are 2 versions of Windows between 9X and XP, which we still
support, and you didn't mention.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 50+ messages in thread
* Re: Windows emacs-25.1 i686 vs x86_64?
2016-11-08 15:31 ` Eli Zaretskii
@ 2016-11-09 16:50 ` Phillip Lord
2016-11-09 17:15 ` Eli Zaretskii
2016-11-09 17:18 ` Stefan Monnier
0 siblings, 2 replies; 50+ messages in thread
From: Phillip Lord @ 2016-11-09 16:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: eggert, rms, emacs-devel
Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>> From: phillip.lord@russet.org.uk (Phillip Lord)
>> Cc: eggert@cs.ucla.edu, eliz@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2016 14:52:44 +0000
>>
>> Can I suggest we add 9x, and Windows XP into the list for Emacs-26?
>
> My main development machine runs Windows XP, so if you want to drop
> support for it, you should ask me to resign first.
Yes, I remember you saying and I remain surprised that you use such an
old operating system, and presumably computer. I guess we wait till your
machine breaks before we move to XP.
> Btw, there are 2 versions of Windows between 9X and XP, which we still
> support, and you didn't mention.
Good point, I had forgotten, my memory of those times is hazy.
Phil
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 50+ messages in thread
* Re: Windows emacs-25.1 i686 vs x86_64?
2016-11-09 16:50 ` Phillip Lord
@ 2016-11-09 17:15 ` Eli Zaretskii
2016-11-09 17:18 ` Stefan Monnier
1 sibling, 0 replies; 50+ messages in thread
From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2016-11-09 17:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Phillip Lord; +Cc: eggert, rms, emacs-devel
> From: phillip.lord@russet.org.uk (Phillip Lord)
> Cc: rms@gnu.org, eggert@cs.ucla.edu, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2016 16:50:24 +0000
>
> > My main development machine runs Windows XP, so if you want to drop
> > support for it, you should ask me to resign first.
>
> Yes, I remember you saying and I remain surprised that you use such an
> old operating system, and presumably computer. I guess we wait till your
> machine breaks before we move to XP.
My machine is just 4-year old, so it is unlikely to break any time
soon (barring force majeure).
> > Btw, there are 2 versions of Windows between 9X and XP, which we still
> > support, and you didn't mention.
>
> Good point, I had forgotten, my memory of those times is hazy.
FWIW, I think considering deprecation of XP, or any other of the OS
versions from the NT family, is unjustified, because, unlike Windows
9X, the number of features that Emacs needs missing from those older
NT-family versions is very small, while all the significant features
we want -- Unicode APIs, file security and access control, Uniscribe
complex script shaping, etc. -- are present in all of those versions.
So removing support for these versions will require some non-trivial
amount of work, and will risk introducing bugs, while the gains will
be insignificant to non-existent. By contrast, testing for
availability of a function is just a few boilerplate lines of code.
It really isn't worth the hassle.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 50+ messages in thread
* Re: Windows emacs-25.1 i686 vs x86_64?
2016-11-09 16:50 ` Phillip Lord
2016-11-09 17:15 ` Eli Zaretskii
@ 2016-11-09 17:18 ` Stefan Monnier
2016-11-10 15:19 ` Phillip Lord
1 sibling, 1 reply; 50+ messages in thread
From: Stefan Monnier @ 2016-11-09 17:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: emacs-devel
> Yes, I remember you saying and I remain surprised that you use such an
> old operating system, and presumably computer. I guess we wait till your
> machine breaks before we move to XP.
FWIW, I don't see much point in discontinuing support for XP. At least
not until we bump into some situation where preserving compatibility
with XP causes significant extra work, or until XP is sufficiently rare.
Currently XP is pretty far from rare in my experience (many users stuck
to XP and resisted upgrading because the subsequent versions delivered
by Microsoft were perceived to be worse in some respects, which is why
Microsoft ended up having to extend support of XP until as late as 2014).
Stefan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 50+ messages in thread* Re: Windows emacs-25.1 i686 vs x86_64?
2016-11-09 17:18 ` Stefan Monnier
@ 2016-11-10 15:19 ` Phillip Lord
0 siblings, 0 replies; 50+ messages in thread
From: Phillip Lord @ 2016-11-10 15:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefan Monnier; +Cc: emacs-devel
Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:
>> Yes, I remember you saying and I remain surprised that you use such an
>> old operating system, and presumably computer. I guess we wait till your
>> machine breaks before we move to XP.
>
> FWIW, I don't see much point in discontinuing support for XP. At least
> not until we bump into some situation where preserving compatibility
> with XP causes significant extra work, or until XP is sufficiently rare.
> Currently XP is pretty far from rare in my experience (many users stuck
> to XP and resisted upgrading because the subsequent versions delivered
> by Microsoft were perceived to be worse in some respects, which is why
> Microsoft ended up having to extend support of XP until as late as 2014).
Yes, that's all true. I hung onto XP until the bitter end. And, it
doesn't require any statements in the README which is what got me here
in the first place.
No worries.
Phil
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 50+ messages in thread
* Re: Windows emacs-25.1 i686 vs x86_64?
2016-11-08 14:52 ` Phillip Lord
2016-11-08 15:31 ` Eli Zaretskii
@ 2016-11-09 7:00 ` martin rudalics
2016-11-15 10:26 ` Phillip Lord
2 siblings, 0 replies; 50+ messages in thread
From: martin rudalics @ 2016-11-09 7:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Phillip Lord, Richard Stallman; +Cc: eliz, eggert, emacs-devel
> This
> would then provide us a generalized mechanism for deprecation of OS
> support. The only difficulty I can see is finding a copy of Win 98 on
> which to test this.
>
> Can I suggest we add 9x, and Windows XP into the list for Emacs-26?
Why deprecate support for systems that is not broken? Shouldn't we
rather concentrate our efforts on fixing support for systems like Cairo
or Gnustep? Would continuing support for Windows 98 hinder us in any
way doing that?
martin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 50+ messages in thread
* Re: Windows emacs-25.1 i686 vs x86_64?
2016-11-08 14:52 ` Phillip Lord
2016-11-08 15:31 ` Eli Zaretskii
2016-11-09 7:00 ` martin rudalics
@ 2016-11-15 10:26 ` Phillip Lord
2 siblings, 0 replies; 50+ messages in thread
From: Phillip Lord @ 2016-11-15 10:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Richard Stallman; +Cc: eliz, eggert, emacs-devel
phillip.lord@russet.org.uk (Phillip Lord) writes:
> We don't need "If you use..." -- Emacs should know OS it is using.
> I am happy to add this to Emacs-26 (perhaps as an addition to the splash
> screen). For "<some email address>" we could use a debbugs email. This
> would then provide us a generalized mechanism for deprecation of OS
> support. The only difficulty I can see is finding a copy of Win 98 on
> which to test this.
>
> Can I suggest we add 9x, and Windows XP into the list for Emacs-26?
>
>> > The only thing that I could think of further to get more information
>> > would be to check the download logs; does ftp.gnu.org store user agent
>> > strings or equivalent. This would at least give us some evidence about
>> > Windows 9x -- also Windows XP.
>>
>> That is a good idea.
>
> I will investigate and see if this data is available.
So, I managed to get info about one day -- there have been 32,000
accesses to ftp.gnu.org. None (for any project, let alone emacs) have
come with a Win 9x user agent.
Phil
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 50+ messages in thread
* Re: Windows emacs-25.1 i686 vs x86_64?
2016-11-07 14:43 ` Richard Stallman
2016-11-07 15:15 ` Daniel Colascione
2016-11-07 15:26 ` Phillip Lord
@ 2016-11-07 16:34 ` Paul Eggert
2016-11-07 18:07 ` Eli Zaretskii
2016-11-07 18:49 ` Perry E. Metzger
3 siblings, 1 reply; 50+ messages in thread
From: Paul Eggert @ 2016-11-07 16:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: rms; +Cc: eliz, phillip.lord, emacs-devel
On 11/07/2016 06:43 AM, Richard Stallman wrote:
> even a few years ago
> people were still installing unauthorized copies of Windows 98 on PCs,
> because Microsoft made it harder to install subsequent Windows
> versions.
That was true fifteen years ago, but unauthorized versions of
more-recent MS-Windows systems have been widely available for ages and
they are the ones invariably installed nowadays. Last year, for example,
Microsoft announced[1] that it would give free Windows 10 licenses to
users running unauthorized copies of Windows 7 or 8.1 because
unauthorized versions were so popular (they reportedly had most of the
Chinese market). StatCounter reports that in China, where unauthorized
use is common, Windows XP had over 90% of desktop use by 2008 (with the
remainder mostly being later versions of Windows), and that nowadays
Windows 7 and Windows 10 are both more popular than XP, with the 9x line
being too small to count separately during this period.
So in practice Windows 9x is dead, and covering Windows 9x prominently
in Emacs documentation wastes users' time and makes us look technically
dated.
1. Hachman M. Microsoft offers amnesty of sorts to pirates of older
Windows software. PCWorld 2015-10-29.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2999443/windows/microsoft-offers-amnesty-of-sorts-to-pirates-of-older-windows-software.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 50+ messages in thread
* Re: Windows emacs-25.1 i686 vs x86_64?
2016-11-07 16:34 ` Paul Eggert
@ 2016-11-07 18:07 ` Eli Zaretskii
2016-11-07 19:02 ` Perry E. Metzger
0 siblings, 1 reply; 50+ messages in thread
From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2016-11-07 18:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paul Eggert; +Cc: phillip.lord, rms, emacs-devel
> Cc: eliz@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, phillip.lord@russet.org.uk
> From: Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>
> Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 08:34:48 -0800
>
> covering Windows 9x prominently in Emacs documentation wastes users'
> time and makes us look technically dated.
A short paragraph in a README is not "prominent documentation". Let's
not lose the perspective when trying to make a point, okay?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 50+ messages in thread
* Re: Windows emacs-25.1 i686 vs x86_64?
2016-11-07 18:07 ` Eli Zaretskii
@ 2016-11-07 19:02 ` Perry E. Metzger
2016-11-07 19:29 ` Eli Zaretskii
2016-11-07 19:39 ` Stefan Monnier
0 siblings, 2 replies; 50+ messages in thread
From: Perry E. Metzger @ 2016-11-07 19:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: Paul Eggert, emacs-devel, rms, phillip.lord
On Mon, 07 Nov 2016 20:07:13 +0200 Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
> > covering Windows 9x prominently in Emacs documentation wastes
> > users' time and makes us look technically dated.
>
> A short paragraph in a README is not "prominent documentation".
> Let's not lose the perspective when trying to make a point, okay?
I'm somewhat surprised that we're discussing support for a proprietary
OS that has been off vendor extended support for over a decade and
which no one uses any more.
I have to assume the main reason for that is that some people
(including RMS) were under the mistaken impression that it is still
widely used, which it is not. Data has already been provided to back
that up.
(If you buy a new computer in China it comes with Windows 10, though
of course not necessarily a legal copy. No one would willingly buy a
machine with Windows 98 installed. It doesn't even support modern
hardware.)
Perry
--
Perry E. Metzger perry@piermont.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 50+ messages in thread
* Re: Windows emacs-25.1 i686 vs x86_64?
2016-11-07 19:02 ` Perry E. Metzger
@ 2016-11-07 19:29 ` Eli Zaretskii
2016-11-07 21:54 ` Phillip Lord
2016-11-07 19:39 ` Stefan Monnier
1 sibling, 1 reply; 50+ messages in thread
From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2016-11-07 19:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Perry E. Metzger; +Cc: eggert, emacs-devel, rms, phillip.lord
> Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 14:02:28 -0500
> From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
> Cc: Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>, phillip.lord@russet.org.uk,
> rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org
>
> I'm somewhat surprised that we're discussing support for a proprietary
> OS that has been off vendor extended support for over a decade and
> which no one uses any more.
We aren't. "Discussing support" would be talking about some code that
needs to be written or rewritten or changed in support of that OS.
Nothing of the sort is on the table; the code is already written, was
written long ago, actually, and no one suggested to work on it, let
alone improve it.
What we are doing is we are bikeshedding about a short paragraph of
text that I added back to a README, that's all. It's a mouse that
gave birth to a mountain. I guess we have nothing more important to
do with our time.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 50+ messages in thread
* Re: Windows emacs-25.1 i686 vs x86_64?
2016-11-07 19:29 ` Eli Zaretskii
@ 2016-11-07 21:54 ` Phillip Lord
0 siblings, 0 replies; 50+ messages in thread
From: Phillip Lord @ 2016-11-07 21:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: eggert, emacs-devel, rms, Perry E. Metzger
Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> What we are doing is we are bikeshedding about a short paragraph of
> text that I added back to a README, that's all. It's a mouse that
> gave birth to a mountain. I guess we have nothing more important to
> do with our time.
My motivation for raising the issue and deleting that text was not one
of bikeshedding.
Of course, as a piece of software with a 40 year history, Emacs is both
bound to and probably should be a relatively conservative project. But,
at the same time, it does need to change and adapt with the times, at
many different levels. And, it has done: dash.el at a code level, a
package system at adminstrative level and now double buffering in the
display.
Emacs is old. Because of this it displays in part maturity and in parts
senescence. Keep the former is a good thing, the latter is not. What
concerns me, here, is that in a document which might be the first thing
that a prospective new user sees, we are saying "if you use Windows 9x".
Every year, I get the privilege of teaching some of the next generation
of programmers, and I live program with Emacs in front of them. Windows
98 became obsolete when they were eight and was released before they
were born. We're never going to be the coolest kids on the block and to
try would be Dad-dancing. But, appearing to live in the past is not good
either (cue Jethro Tull).
Here I leave the discussion.
Phil
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 50+ messages in thread
* Re: Windows emacs-25.1 i686 vs x86_64?
2016-11-07 19:02 ` Perry E. Metzger
2016-11-07 19:29 ` Eli Zaretskii
@ 2016-11-07 19:39 ` Stefan Monnier
2016-11-07 20:02 ` Perry E. Metzger
1 sibling, 1 reply; 50+ messages in thread
From: Stefan Monnier @ 2016-11-07 19:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: emacs-devel
> (If you buy a new computer in China it comes with Windows 10, though
> of course not necessarily a legal copy. No one would willingly buy a
> machine with Windows 98 installed. It doesn't even support modern
> hardware.)
The argument was not for people using new machines with old OS, but
people using old machines (with accompanying old OS).
Stefan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 50+ messages in thread* Re: Windows emacs-25.1 i686 vs x86_64?
2016-11-07 19:39 ` Stefan Monnier
@ 2016-11-07 20:02 ` Perry E. Metzger
2016-11-07 20:10 ` Stefan Monnier
0 siblings, 1 reply; 50+ messages in thread
From: Perry E. Metzger @ 2016-11-07 20:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefan Monnier; +Cc: emacs-devel
On Mon, 07 Nov 2016 14:39:26 -0500 Stefan Monnier
<monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
> > (If you buy a new computer in China it comes with Windows 10,
> > though of course not necessarily a legal copy. No one would
> > willingly buy a machine with Windows 98 installed. It doesn't
> > even support modern hardware.)
>
> The argument was not for people using new machines with old OS, but
> people using old machines (with accompanying old OS).
Sure, but there's very little evidence that many of those are extant.
Perry
--
Perry E. Metzger perry@piermont.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 50+ messages in thread
* Re: Windows emacs-25.1 i686 vs x86_64?
2016-11-07 20:02 ` Perry E. Metzger
@ 2016-11-07 20:10 ` Stefan Monnier
2016-11-07 20:22 ` Perry E. Metzger
0 siblings, 1 reply; 50+ messages in thread
From: Stefan Monnier @ 2016-11-07 20:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Perry E. Metzger; +Cc: emacs-devel
> Sure, but there's very little evidence that many of those are extant.
Five years ago, I would have wholeheartedly agreed with you. And yet,
at that point, some user complained about something that broke under
Windows98 and in their context it was still in wide use and they went
through a fair bit of trouble helping us debug this use-case until it
worked again.
So my gut feeling still agrees with yours, but I wouldn't necessarily
trust it.
Stefan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 50+ messages in thread* Re: Windows emacs-25.1 i686 vs x86_64?
2016-11-07 20:10 ` Stefan Monnier
@ 2016-11-07 20:22 ` Perry E. Metzger
2016-11-07 20:27 ` Eli Zaretskii
0 siblings, 1 reply; 50+ messages in thread
From: Perry E. Metzger @ 2016-11-07 20:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefan Monnier; +Cc: emacs-devel
On Mon, 07 Nov 2016 15:10:57 -0500 Stefan Monnier
<monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
> > Sure, but there's very little evidence that many of those are
> > extant.
>
> Five years ago, I would have wholeheartedly agreed with you. And
> yet, at that point, some user complained about something that broke
> under Windows98 and in their context it was still in wide use and
> they went through a fair bit of trouble helping us debug this
> use-case until it worked again.
>
> So my gut feeling still agrees with yours, but I wouldn't
> necessarily trust it.
I think deliberately breaking it seems like it would be antisocial,
but going through substantial trouble (that is, say, holding back
some sort of improved functionality) to make sure it keeps working
also seems unreasonable.
Perry
--
Perry E. Metzger perry@piermont.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 50+ messages in thread
* Re: Windows emacs-25.1 i686 vs x86_64?
2016-11-07 20:22 ` Perry E. Metzger
@ 2016-11-07 20:27 ` Eli Zaretskii
2016-11-08 3:48 ` Elias Mårtenson
0 siblings, 1 reply; 50+ messages in thread
From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2016-11-07 20:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Perry E. Metzger; +Cc: monnier, emacs-devel
> Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 15:22:28 -0500
> From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
>
> I think deliberately breaking it seems like it would be antisocial,
> but going through substantial trouble (that is, say, holding back
> some sort of improved functionality) to make sure it keeps working
> also seems unreasonable.
We never do the latter. If some functionality cannot work on old
Windows systems, there's a runtime test which disables the feature on
those systems, with some suitable return value or error message.
This has been the Emacs practice for years.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 50+ messages in thread
* Re: Windows emacs-25.1 i686 vs x86_64?
2016-11-07 20:27 ` Eli Zaretskii
@ 2016-11-08 3:48 ` Elias Mårtenson
2016-11-08 15:32 ` Eli Zaretskii
0 siblings, 1 reply; 50+ messages in thread
From: Elias Mårtenson @ 2016-11-08 3:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: emacs-devel, Stefan Monnier, Perry E. Metzger
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1259 bytes --]
On 8 November 2016 at 04:27, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
> > Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 15:22:28 -0500
> > From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
> > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> >
> > I think deliberately breaking it seems like it would be antisocial,
> > but going through substantial trouble (that is, say, holding back
> > some sort of improved functionality) to make sure it keeps working
> > also seems unreasonable.
>
> We never do the latter. If some functionality cannot work on old
> Windows systems, there's a runtime test which disables the feature on
> those systems, with some suitable return value or error message.
>
> This has been the Emacs practice for years.
>
FWIW, my impression after reading this thread wasn't merely about the text
in the README, but rather as to whether time should be spent even
considering Windows 9x when working on Emacs.
I took the liberty to search the archives, and found several instances this
year alone where time was spent discussing whether or not to use one
function or another because they weren't supposed on these older versions
of Windows.
At the risk of putting opinions into other people's mouths, I do think that
those are the kinds of discussions no one really wants.
Regards,
Elias
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1870 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 50+ messages in thread
* Re: Windows emacs-25.1 i686 vs x86_64?
2016-11-08 3:48 ` Elias Mårtenson
@ 2016-11-08 15:32 ` Eli Zaretskii
0 siblings, 0 replies; 50+ messages in thread
From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2016-11-08 15:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Elias Mårtenson; +Cc: emacs-devel, monnier, perry
> From: Elias Mårtenson <lokedhs@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 11:48:18 +0800
> Cc: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>, Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>,
> emacs-devel <emacs-devel@gnu.org>
>
> I think deliberately breaking it seems like it would be antisocial,
> > but going through substantial trouble (that is, say, holding back
> > some sort of improved functionality) to make sure it keeps working
> > also seems unreasonable.
>
> We never do the latter. If some functionality cannot work on old
> Windows systems, there's a runtime test which disables the feature on
> those systems, with some suitable return value or error message.
>
> This has been the Emacs practice for years.
>
> FWIW, my impression after reading this thread wasn't merely about the text in the README, but rather as to whether time should be spent even considering Windows 9x when working on Emacs.
It started because I asked not to delete that text. Leaving that text
alone would exactly mean we don't need to spend any time even
considering Windows 9X, whereas this discussion does require us to
consider it.
> I took the liberty to search the archives, and found several instances this year alone where time was spent discussing whether or not to use one function or another because they weren't supposed on these older versions of Windows.
During this year, I see just one discussion (in January) of a certain
patch wrt how to adapt it to some older systems, and how to fix bugs
and issues revealed on those systems (including, but not limited to,
9X).
> At the risk of putting opinions into other people's mouths, I do think that those are the kinds of discussions no one really wants.
Some of those discussions (usually, comments to patches) cannot be
avoided, because some library functions and APIs aren't available on
all OS versions. Failure to either use more widely available APIs or
provide a run-time test for their availability will lead to an Emacs
binary that will refuse to start on some versions of Windows, even
though the offending API is not needed by that user in that session.
The result will be that Emacs can only be trusted to run on the system
where it was built.
On Unix, these tests are done at configure time, and therefore the
produced binary cannot be safely copied to another system. By
contrast, on Windows, it is very customary for users to download
binaries compiled on some other system, so configure-time testing
cannot be used, and must be replaced with run-time testing, if and
when the corresponding APIs are needed for some Emacs feature and
alternative APIs don't exist. People who contribute code to Emacs
aren't always aware of this issue, so it comes up in discussing
patches. The code for these tests is boilerplate, but it must be
there for each API that is not guaranteed to exist on all supported
versions of the OS.
And of course, this isn't limited to Windows 9X, since each new
version of Windows introduces APIs that aren't available in previous
versions. So providing bleeding-edge features in Emacs on Windows
will always need to include run-time tests for availability of the
required new APIs, because we do want Emacs to continue being able to
run on older systems, even if those bleeding-edge features might not
be available there. We already have a few features that are disabled,
or fall back on simple replacements, on versions of Windows newer than
9X, sometimes much newer (e.g., creation and resolution of symbolic
links aren't supported below Vista).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 50+ messages in thread
* Re: Windows emacs-25.1 i686 vs x86_64?
2016-11-07 14:43 ` Richard Stallman
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2016-11-07 16:34 ` Paul Eggert
@ 2016-11-07 18:49 ` Perry E. Metzger
2016-11-08 13:55 ` Richard Stallman
3 siblings, 1 reply; 50+ messages in thread
From: Perry E. Metzger @ 2016-11-07 18:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Richard Stallman; +Cc: eliz, Paul Eggert, emacs-devel, phillip.lord
On Mon, 07 Nov 2016 09:43:23 -0500 Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
wrote:
> Given that Windows is so widely used, and that so many users stick
> to old versions of it, it is plausible to me that millions of people
> still use Windows 98. Maybe tens or hundreds of millions.
It is not likely. There is statistical information that was
cited earlier in this thread. Windows 9x and ME are now below 0.01%
usage. How much below is hard to measure.
Emacs was likely never particularly popular with people willing to
hold on to an OS for that long either, as such people are typically
not technical users (and in fact, the users of those systems are in
fact typically not people at all in the sense that such systems,
when they remain, are embedded systems doing things like balancing
car wheels and running old cash registers).
So, given a fraction of a percent userbase and a fraction of a
percent for that OS, I think it would be fairly safe to assume we're
talking about a fraction of a percent of a fraction of a percent,
probably too small to measure.
Such people also are unlikely to have very good ability to
use the internet because their machines would be taken over by
malware within seconds of attaching to an open network, and because
no web browsers exist for such platforms capable of using modern web
sites. I would guess, therefore, that they're unlikely to be
downloading new copies of Emacs as they arise.
There is nothing, IMHO, wrong with telling such users that they will
have to use Emacs 25.1 and before and documenting that. I would be
quite sincerely surprised, however, if anyone at all was
inconvenienced.
> That number may still be growing. ISTR that even a few years ago
> people were still installing unauthorized copies of Windows 98 on
> PCs, because Microsoft made it harder to install subsequent Windows
> versions.
That has not been true in a long time. As noted, the statistics do not
bear this out, and in fact, it is not hard to install a more recent
version of Windows even without Microsoft permission. If you're in a
country like China you can get your hands on unlocked much more recent
versions of Windows without paying for it.
Indeed, the situation is such that Microsoft more or less made it
possible to install Windows 10 without any license key. The only real
effect of this is that you get a watermark in one corner of the
screen telling you that you should register your copy.
> It would not surprise me if Windows 98 was installed on
> millions of new PCs this year.
I will bet you this is not the case.
Perry
--
Perry E. Metzger perry@piermont.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 50+ messages in thread* Re: Windows emacs-25.1 i686 vs x86_64?
2016-11-07 18:49 ` Perry E. Metzger
@ 2016-11-08 13:55 ` Richard Stallman
2016-11-08 14:34 ` Perry E. Metzger
0 siblings, 1 reply; 50+ messages in thread
From: Richard Stallman @ 2016-11-08 13:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Perry E. Metzger; +Cc: eliz, eggert, phillip.lord, emacs-devel
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> It is not likely. There is statistical information that was
> cited earlier in this thread. Windows 9x and ME are now below 0.01%
> usage. How much below is hard to measure.
It seems I was mistaken in what I remembered. Maybe it was Windows XP
that was still being installed a few years ago.
--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 50+ messages in thread
* Re: Windows emacs-25.1 i686 vs x86_64?
2016-11-08 13:55 ` Richard Stallman
@ 2016-11-08 14:34 ` Perry E. Metzger
0 siblings, 0 replies; 50+ messages in thread
From: Perry E. Metzger @ 2016-11-08 14:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Richard Stallman; +Cc: eliz, eggert, phillip.lord, emacs-devel
On Tue, 08 Nov 2016 08:55:23 -0500 Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
wrote:
> > It is not likely. There is statistical information that was
> > cited earlier in this thread. Windows 9x and ME are now below
> > 0.01% usage. How much below is hard to measure.
>
> It seems I was mistaken in what I remembered. Maybe it was Windows
> XP that was still being installed a few years ago.
Windows XP is, sadly, still used by some people, though a large
fraction of that use is in embedded systems (like older medical
equipment and old ATMs) rather than on desktops. I don't think anyone
is installing it into new things terribly much if at all, but yes,
there's a certain amount of it out there.
Official end of support from Microsoft happened on April 8, 2014. I
would say that in a few years it will not be of much importance, but
for now there's still a *bit*.
Perry
--
Perry E. Metzger perry@piermont.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 50+ messages in thread