From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Why Windows XP Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 09:40:45 +0300 Message-ID: <83y43kc9si.fsf@gnu.org> References: <4BEB358D.1000605@gmx.de> <87shtu7wx4.fsf@cochranmail.com> <83pooxefnk.fsf@gnu.org> <57BEB7A4.5000008@gmx.at> <878tvk654x.fsf@cochranmail.com> <8337lsek8k.fsf@gnu.org> <87h9a8p3lr.fsf@cochranmail.com> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1472193642 15482 195.159.176.226 (26 Aug 2016 06:40:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 06:40:42 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rudalics@gmx.at, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Robert Cochran Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Aug 26 08:40:38 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 1bdAod-0003LD-73 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 26 Aug 2016 08:40:35 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:59263 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bdAod-0003iw-R0 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 26 Aug 2016 02:40:35 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57033) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bdAoY-0003ig-Aw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 26 Aug 2016 02:40:31 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bdAoU-0005mj-6G for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 26 Aug 2016 02:40:29 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:48090) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bdAoU-0005mV-30; Fri, 26 Aug 2016 02:40:26 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:3117 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1bdAoR-0004bV-Tz; Fri, 26 Aug 2016 02:40:24 -0400 In-reply-to: <87h9a8p3lr.fsf@cochranmail.com> (message from Robert Cochran on Thu, 25 Aug 2016 21:16:00 -0700) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e 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:206810 Archived-At: > From: Robert Cochran > Cc: Robert Cochran , rudalics@gmx.at, 6180@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 21:16:00 -0700 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > Why what? why Windows or why XP? > > Why XP mostly. I can understand why people may prefer or be forced to > use Windows (even though that's something I personally try hard to > avoid), but I'd figure anyone that could have moved on from XP would > have by now. Especially because, as I mentioned, XP is no longer > receiving any updates or security fixes of any sort, making XP users > relatively more vulnerable (although I acknowledge that the knowledgeable > can take measures to reduce the risk). > > If you're still using XP, there's obviously a reason of some sort, by > choice or otherwise. Basically, I had no reasons to upgrade a well-configured and stable system. I had a few reasons not to upgrade, one of them being that XP is the last version that supports DOS emulation well, so I can still build and debug the MSDOS port of Emacs. Later Windows versions have broken DOS emulations, and the 64-bit versions simply don't have it. XP is rock-solid, it runs here for months on end without restarting. And with the regular updates gone, there are no more reasons to restart it, except rarely, when the antivirus software asks for that. The importance of security fixes is greatly exaggerated, IMO, for a system that sits behind 2 routers, each blocking arbitrary access attempts from outside, and with MUA being Emacs that never does anything stupid with attachments, unless I am stupid enough to instruct it (which I'm not). > I hadn't realized that some people on the Emacs lists were still > using XP, otherwise I would have responded differently. Please don't > take what I've already said in a negative or derogatory way. No offense taken, and I don't think your response could have been taken as such. More to the point, we are trying not to break support for old versions of Windows deliberately. That could still happen inadvertently, because we don't have any users on those systems, but we try not to make changes we know will not work there. That is why Emacs can still run on Windows 9X, last time I checked. The reason is that there are still a lot of such old installations in many developing countries, so we try not to prevent them from using Emacs.