On 3-8-2012 10:43, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote: > On 2 August 2012 18:38, Reinier Olislagers <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Speaking for myself, after submitting a patch, I really don't want to be >> told that Win9x/ME does things differently and that I should correct my >> patch to incorporate support. > > Welcome to the world of programmers. If my clients still run Windows > 98, I can't force them to pay a fortune to Microsoft for a new OS, and > force them to upgrade all there PC's because the latest OS doesn't run > on a Win98 spec'ed PC. > > And to answer your earlier question, our clients put together has over > 2000+ PC's still running Win98. Would you like to tell them they must > all instantly upgrade (and pay a fortune) when those systems still run > perfectly for there purpose? No, I won't.... but I think you're extrapolating about the need to "instantly upgrade" etc.
As I wrote earlier, I didn't have the impression there would be many users on Win98. Thanks for giving some real-life numbers. I think the next questions would be something like: 1. do these clients then use Lazarus applications or others like fpGUI 2. can/should these applications be maintained by 2.1 Laz 1.0 (without new fixes) 2.2 a separate win9x branch supported by whomever wants to work on it 2.3 trunk Lazarus with fixes as usual but without any testing/consideration for Win9x for any new code 2.4 the current way of doing things: patches that don't provide win9x support sometimes get blocked Even though the difference between some of these options may be small, I think it merits a clear decision so everybody can plan and know the consequences. I think Bart suggested this discussion be moved to some private lazarus developers list. No problems with that, I'm glad the topic is being discussed so informed, timely (not abrupt) well-considered decisions can be made. Thanks, Reinier -- _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
