Dropping official 9x support

Charli Li KBarticle889459@aim.com
Sat Jul 15 04:06:00 GMT 2006

-----Original Message-----
>From: cgf
>Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 1:23 PM
>To: Cygwin-Developers ML
>Subject: Re: Dropping official 9x support
>On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 09:49:21AM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote:
>>Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> Somebody (as in "somebody else", not cgf or me) will look into any
>>> upcoming 9x problems and will try to fix them.  cgf and me will not
>>> grant any concessions to 9x when implementing new code, we will not make
>>> any tests on 9x and we will not at all try to find the reason why the
>>> code doesn't work on it.  Maybe for lots of money, but not just so.
>>> Any volunteer or anybody with a better idea?  If not, 1.5.21 will be
>>> the last release which is supposed to work on 9x.  Serves it right.
I could probably rig up a *REALLY* old and stinking computer that has just
been dumped, just as long as it can run Windows 98SE.  Problem is, I might
not do it, since I got lots of other stuff to do.  The VM thing, well,
*BOTH* of my hard drives (C:;D:) are pratically filled.  I can't get rid of
any stuff, since all the stuff is useful to myself.

>>So in essence this boils down to "it should probably continue to work OK
>>(in the short term at least) but if a change breaks it we won't fix it
>>unless someone debugs and submits a patch that passes muster"?  That's
>>certainly more than fine by me, I just hope you have your asbestos suits
>>prepared for the deluge of "me have 486 run windows 95, me want cygwin".
>The thing that prompted this is that right now 1.5.22 is broken on
>Windows 98.
Dropping support on DOS Kernel for 1.5.22-* is a good thing, if you are
introducing new features.  You can take Firefox 3.0 (Minefield) for example,
that there is no pre-2000 support.  One of the reasons was Cairo.

>One thing always bothers me about dropping 9x support - the breakage that
>is uncovered there also reflects real problems or stupid assumptions about
>the way windows work.  So as much as I detest keeping Cygwin working on
>Windows 9x, it does have some benefits for NT+ class systems.  I'm just
>not sure if the benefits outweigh the problems however.

Good thing that you guys aren't gonna make the same controversy that Mozilla
made about Firefox 2.0 and 3.0's compatibility.  It's good that 1.5.21-* is
a forewarning to DOS Kernel (Windows 95, 98, 98SE, ME) users that 1.5.22-*
is going to be incompatible with their OS.

I think we should keep discussing this matter until 1.5.22-* is actually
rolled out, and then the verdict will be in...for good.


More information about the Cygwin-developers mailing list