On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 12:44 PM, burgersoft777 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> When you take account of the size of > the 2k user base I would have thought goggle would have bent over > backwards to help. Its not to late to change direction and do > something for the users rather than act as an agent of MS effectively > attempting to fool users into changing an OS that remains more than up > to the task of running your browser. Much as I love a good conspiracy theory, acting as an agent of Microsoft wasn't the deciding factor here. Win2k lacks a large number of APIs Chromium uses, especially with regard to the sandbox (but also in a number of other core and UI functions). We intended to support win2k for a long time and only changed our minds after it became clear that the engineering cost would be very large and ongoing (despite your assertions to the contrary). Also, the size of the win2k user base is not, in fact, particularly large, and many of these users are in locked-down corporate environments where Chromium will have little penetration. I don't have a ton of sympathy here. Electing to run an eight-year-old operating system is a choice that carries many tradeoffs with it, including no support from the manufacturer and an inability to run various newer programs, including Chromium. I think there are more impactful changes we can spend our effort on as a development community. Obviously, if a fully-working port and an ongoing maintainer are both available, the cost of this choice is reduced, and the decision might change. PK --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
