[PATCH setup] Show a MessageBox warning if running on a deprecated Windows version

[Adam Dinwoodie]

On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 12:45:06PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jan 14 10:54, Adam Dinwoodie wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 at 09:05, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > On Jan 13 15:13, Jon Turney wrote:
> > > > Show a MessageBox warning if we are running on a Windows version which
> > > > we have deprecated Cygwin support for:
> > > >
> > > > - Windows 6.0 (Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008)
> > > > - 32-bit Windows
> > > >
> > > > This warning can be disabled with '--allow-unsupported-windows'.
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > Notes:
> > > >     Not sure if this is needed, or maybe this is just annoying to the ~3% of
> > > >     users who are running effected OSes.  But maybe we want to annoy them
> > > >     into doing something about it?
> > >
> > > Question is, how often should setup show this message?  Every time might
> > > really be a bit annoying.  Some kind of "I saw it, now leave me alone,
> > > at least for a while" kind of function would be great.
> > 
> > Eh. The installer tries to add icons to my desktop every time I run it
> > unless I provide a command-line argument every time. This behaviour
> > seems no more or less annoying to me, and I think having users see
> > that warning is much more important than adding a desktop icon.
> 
> Point.

Perhaps more constructively: I've become inured to the bits of setup's
behaviour that I find annoying, and I've created my own workarounds
(specifically, a bash function that wraps setup and automatically
provides a bunch of arguments, including `-d` to avoid adding icons I
don't want).  I expect most people who are using setup have also become
inured to these annoyances, and I don't think adding this additional
warning is a significant additional annoyance.

That said, just because I've become inured to these annoyances, doesn't
mean we* couldn't do better.  In particular, I think a lot of the parts
of the setup UI you have to go through every time could more usefully be
hidden after a user has gone through them once, and only displayed again
if (a) the user requested that with a command-line option, (b) the
options have legitimately changed, or possibly (c) the user clicks (say)
an "Advanced mode" button on the first page of the installer.

In particular, I expect the installer would be that bit friendlier to
most users if the default behaviour were as if `-Mn` were specified by
default every time after the first run.

This is obviously well outside the scope of the immediate conversation,
but I thought it worth revisiting the topic with a more constructive
view, rather than my initial slightly grumpy reaction.

Adam

* I say "we" here; I sadly do not have the bandwidth for committing to
working on even small enhancements to setup's usability.  The perennial
open source issue: someone has to do it, and I have far too many other
things to spend time on...