On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:38:16AM -0500, Jim Starkey wrote:
> I'm not at all sure that having "official" Firebird compilers is that
> good of an idea.
>
> The basic principle is that the code should work on a wide variety of
> compilers.
You (and not only you) are mixing two very different
Expression index may not be used by the optimizer if created and used in
different connection charsets
--
Key: CORE-5122
URL:
>> Anyway, my point is just to show that those 2 systems can still be
>> widely used in some parts of the world, and this should be taken into
>> the math when taking any decision.
JČ> Just out of curiosity. Are these systems going to be upgraded to
JČ> Firebird 4?
You need to ask the Oracle :)
On 2016-02-29 13:02, Carlos H. Cantu wrote:
> MR> Let me make my position clear: I don't see the need to support a
> 14
> MR> year old OS that has had no updates (including security updates)
> since
> MR> April 2014. If you're in business with such systems, you are
> operating
> MR>
On 2/29/2016 2:19 AM, Michal Kubecek wrote:
> .
>
> Question: Does this problem would also affect the compiled client
> library? Or do you guys also think nobody using Win XP/2003 will needs
> to connect to Firebird?
> First, the discussion is about a version which, extrapolating from
> previous
> About outdated, insecure environments, you have no idea about what you
> can find here, and I will not even speak about this :D
>
> Anyway, my point is just to show that those 2 systems can still be
> widely used in some parts of the world, and this should be taken into
> the math when taking
MR> Let me make my position clear: I don't see the need to support a 14
MR> year old OS that has had no updates (including security updates) since
MR> April 2014. If you're in business with such systems, you are operating
MR> irresponsibly and I see no need to support such behavior. Also if you
> Let me make my position clear: I don't see the need to support a 14
> year old OS that has had no updates (including security updates) since
> April 2014. If you're in business with such systems, you are operating
> irresponsibly and I see no need to support such behavior. Also if you
> are
On 2016-02-29 1:25, Carlos H. Cantu wrote:
>>> However, I seriously question the need to support Windows XP and
>>> Windows Server 2003 for Firebird 4.
>
> LS> I completely agree!
> LS> There comes a time when some OSs/installs need to be recognized
> as *legacy*.
> LS> Systems based on those
On 28/02/16 18:19, Leyne, Sean wrote:
>
>> > However, I seriously question the need to support Windows XP and
>> > Windows Server 2003 for Firebird 4.
> I completely agree!
>
> There comes a time when some OSs/installs need to be recognized as *legacy*.
>
> Systems based on those platforms
2016. 02. 28. 12:21 keltezéssel, Mark Rotteveel írta:
> However, I seriously question the need to support Windows XP and Windows
> Server 2003 for Firebird 4.
I have no right to vote, but I think that Windows 7 SP1 / Windows Server
2008 R2 SP1 perfectly reasonable minimum requirement.
Gabor
>> I'm quite happy with VS 2013 Community Edition, but I never tried VS
>> 2015 and I'm mostly on Linux during the last years.
>>
>> Vlad, do you have any preference?
>
> I used VS 2013 for a long time and still have no look at VS 2015.
> So, VS 2012 definitely out of question ;)
Hi All,
>> There comes a time when some OSs/installs need to be recognized as *legacy*.
> Such as Solaris, for example?..
Still alive and kicking I am afraid. Firebird 2.5 Compiles cleanly for Solaris
and is in use.
Paul
--
13 matches
Mail list logo
