EOL for Windows 95/98/Me

Christopher Faylor cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@cygwin.com
Mon Feb 12 12:51:00 GMT 2007

On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 01:22:17PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Feb 12 07:09, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 11:02:22AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>>>According to Corinna Vinschen on 2/7/2007 3:17 AM:
>>>>>Btw., it just occured to me that I'd rather get rid of the 9x stuff in
>>>>>the 1.7.0 DLL entirely.  This would have visible advantages.
>>>Looks like there's nothing more to discuss, given the sparse number of
>>>replies.  Which is definitely fine with me.  I'll start ripping out 9x
>>>support in the next couple of days.
>>Has this subject been sent to the main mailing list?  I don't think we
>>have a representative cross sampling here.
>>I'm not against removing support but I'd like to know how many people
>>we're going to hear from.
>Sure enough only 5% of the list subscribers read the latest
>announcements carefully or bothered to visit the cygwin HP.  But I'm
>wondering if we really need to ask the main list, given that we will
>stop support for 9x anyway.

If I've learned anything in the last year it's that you have to give
people advance notice about changes which could impact them severely.
Since we don't know how many people this will affect and since it is a
major change for Cygwin you really have to let as many people know about
this as possible.

So, I've sent out a cygwin-announce notice about this.

>And, if we do as suggested, we can split out a distro for 9x based on
>1.5.24, so the 9x users aren't entirely left alone.

I'm still wondering if this shouldn't be Cygwin 2.1.0 rather than Cygwin
1.7.0.  As long as we're making major changes maybe we could start by
moving to cygwin2.dll.  There are a number of misdesigns that I'd love
to remove from cygwin, given the chance to do it over.


More information about the Cygwin-developers mailing list