This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Last Version of Cygwin for XP
- From: Erik Soderquist <ErikSoderquist at gmail dot com>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 19:37:39 -0500
- Subject: Re: Last Version of Cygwin for XP
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CA+0JN2rG-bH3cWeEVfek5Y3xRVY_BB+Jpxspch95YOKJ+tyUdg at mail dot gmail dot com> <56BA9DB2 dot 3080106 at cygwin dot com> <56BB6FD1 dot 6000208 at molconn dot com> <56BB7220 dot 5010101 at cygwin dot com> <56BCCE7D dot 6040605 at gmail dot com> <4D4ECA09-53B3-4A16-89BC-E9C7054A22C7 at etr-usa dot com> <CACoZoo1J1sOA+X30rbKXsCWgV-2gwqibNyr+_KZcuOOngvEnAA at mail dot gmail dot com> <F5B8D185-8F81-4577-8E01-D9C5E0F8F38E at etr-usa dot com>
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Warren Young wrote:
> On Feb 12, 2016, at 2:58 PM, Erik Soderquist wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Warren Young wrote:
>>> I hope not. Extended support ended nearly two years ago.
>> ...why waste the resources on newer (and more bloated) packages?
> The same blade cuts both ways. The small and shrinking percentage
> of Cygwin + XP users arenât worth much resource spent on the Cygwin
> Coat your XP boxes in amber and keep on using them, if you must,
> but any updates you still get are pure bonus at this point.
I have, my "amber" is the virtual env without network access even
possible for them. ;) I've approached the vendor multiple times
about Linux support or opensourcing the package, to no avail, and
currently I'm studying programming myself now with a direct goal of
being able to write a Linux compatible replacement so I can dump my
own amber-coated XP
>> I get very tired of people consistently implying (or
>> outright saying) that not upgrading XP is some form of stupidity or
> Yes, well, when there are still millions of XP-based ATMs out there,
> I think I have sufficient justification for reflexive shaming. 
> The Home Depot and Target breaches basically came down to
> unpatched XP boxes. 
We heartily agree here, these examples should have had XP replaced
_before_ support for XP ran out so there would not have been such a
risk. I still question whether nor not reflexive is appropriate.
>> Would I trust one of these hosts on the internet at all?
> Of all the XP machines in the world, what percentage have no
> reason to be on the Internet in 2016?
I would say zero percent as of 2014.
> I suspect there are more cases of low-regard Internet-connected
> XP boxes than carefully-firewalled cases like yours:
Agreed; I seem to be the "freak" a lot of the time
> - grandmaâs email machine
> - the Steam PC in the kidsâ room
> - the embedded PC inside the Internet-connected kiosk
> - the machine driving the vinyl cutter at Billâs Sign Shopâ
> Since these boxes are likely to end up as hosts for a botnet,
> Iâm not willing to say itâs just their own lookout. Their disregard
> is causing problems for the rest of us.
Of these, I think only the vinyl cutter could be salvaged in a way
similar to my setup, and the rest, like it or not, need to be upgraded
or replaced. Unfortunately, I suspect most users in those scenarios
don't know enough about computers in general to understand why they
need to be upgraded or replaced.
>  http://goo.gl/9Zf3pw
>  http://goo.gl/EJ5tiY
keeping these links because they are excellent references
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple