On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Jeff Trawick <traw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 9:38 AM, stefan.n...@t-online.de < > stefan.n...@t-online.de> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> > > Which platforms are deprecaded an could/should be removed in the >> > > sourcecode? >> > > MS-DOS? >> > > Windows 16 Bit? >> > > OS/2? >> > > Windows 95/98/ME? >> > > Windows NT/2000/XP? >> > >> > Necessary criteria for a platform to be included in the first list >> would be: >> > * Currency, i.e. a platform is widely deployed and in current use >> > * Vendor support, i.e. if a platform is no longer supported by its >> > vendor - why should we continue to support it? >> > * Available to the dev team, i.e. the dev team have access to a >> > suitable environment in which to be able to test builds and deal with >> > tickets and issues >> >> I'd also add a fourth point: >> * How much do you gain by removing support for the platform? >> >> Is there any relevant amount of code, that is really NT/2000/XP specific >> and unneeded for newer Windows releases? > > > Yes IMO if you include even older versions of that OS family. > But I answered the wrong question and inserted a topic of interest to me ;) (sorry) > As an example, look at the input handling in s_client and see why kbhit() > has to be satisfied to trigger end of user input on modern Windows even > after EOF. Get rid of the old crap or invest in better portability > handling. > > > Breaking the support for >> the ancient platform by removing just a dozen lines of code seems like >> an unnecessary annoyance to (admittedly few) users. >> If on the other hand you can throw away hundreds of lines of code that >> nobody understands or even looks at, then go for it ... >> >> > Applying these tests to your list of platforms I think they all fail the >> > first test (with the exception of XP). They all fail the second test. >> >> Just for the sake of correctness, OS/2 in it's re-incarnation as >> eComStation >> _does_ have vendor support. According to >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EComStation, Serenity Systems states that >> eComStation will be developed and sold as long as it remains profitable. >> According to rumours, existing contracts ensure this for _at_least_ five >> more years, as incredible as this sounds in the era of 64 bit systems. >> > In projects I actually work on (apr, httpd) these supposedly viable platforms create some amount of noise or at least consternation around being unable to implement test a new feature for other developers and usually nobody is around to lift a finger. Or there is actual work around keeping it building when somebody appears out of the woodwork with a complaint. Somehow the wrong people help subsidize the margins and at the same time help prop up the false message that this is a viable platform, which is a disservice to people who wonder if they should switch to something modern. > >> Regards, >> Stefan >> >> >> ______________________________________________________________________ >> OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org >> Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org >> Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org >> > > > > -- > Born in Roswell... married an alien... > http://emptyhammock.com/ > http://edjective.org/ > > -- Born in Roswell... married an alien... http://emptyhammock.com/ http://edjective.org/
