Re: Windows XP and Vista Long Term Support Plan

Thanks for the clarifications. Peter On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 10:46 PM, Chris Hutten-Czapski wrote: > Over the past two months there has been no absolute decline in number of > Windows XP installs. (Source: Tableau data, which is sadly not public so I > cannot link because

Re: Windows XP and Vista Long Term Support Plan

Over the past two months there has been no absolute decline in number of Windows XP installs. (Source: Tableau data, which is sadly not public so I cannot link because it reveals more data from our users than we feel comfortable sharing) Over the past two months there has been an absolute

Re: Windows XP and Vista Long Term Support Plan

> > Chutten is not as categoric as you are: > > It is also possible that we’ve seen some ex-Chrome users fleeing > Google’s drop of support from earlier this year. > This is possible, but I'd still expect to see the biggest impact when Chrome started including the scary persistent notification

Re: Windows XP and Vista Long Term Support Plan

On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 09:28:40AM +0800, Peter Dolanjski wrote: > On 10/31/2016 3:54 PM, juar...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > Discontinuing support for 10% of users sounds like shrinking 10% of > > customers, lay off 10% of employees, reduce 10% of funds for > > investments. > > > I can tell you

Re: Windows XP and Vista Long Term Support Plan

On 10/31/2016 3:54 PM, juar...@gmail.com wrote: > > Discontinuing support for 10% of users sounds like shrinking 10% of > customers, lay off 10% of employees, reduce 10% of funds for investments. I can tell you that the evidence we have does not support the notion that end of life (or the

Re: Windows XP and Vista Long Term Support Plan

Aaron, thank you for explaining the reasons for this decision so thoroughly! On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Aaron Klotz wrote: > Disclaimer: I am not a decision maker on this, these are my personal > opinions, etc, etc > > On 10/31/2016 3:54 PM, juar...@gmail.com wrote: >

Re: Windows XP and Vista Long Term Support Plan

Em quinta-feira, 27 de outubro de 2016 11:48:13 UTC-2, Peter Dolanjski escreveu: > > > > What I think would be helpful if Mozilla does go with this plan, is that, > > first, Mozilla sets a definite end date up front for ESR 52 and, second, > > that Mozilla has puts out the message as to what and

Re: Windows XP and Vista Long Term Support Plan

> > What I think would be helpful if Mozilla does go with this plan, is that, > first, Mozilla sets a definite end date up front for ESR 52 and, second, > that Mozilla has puts out the message as to what and why this is happening. > Setting an end date for support will give everyone a timeline to

Re: Windows XP and Vista Long Term Support Plan

On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 3:22:10 AM UTC-5, Gervase Markham wrote: > On 24/10/16 18:44, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > This seems to assume facts not in evidence, namely that people will stop > > using those > > machines rather than just living with whatever the last version we updated > > them

Re: Windows XP and Vista Long Term Support Plan

On 24/10/16 18:44, Eric Rescorla wrote: > This seems to assume facts not in evidence, namely that people will stop > using those > machines rather than just living with whatever the last version we updated > them to. I think you've misread what I said. I said that if it turns out that (for

Re: Windows XP and Vista Long Term Support Plan

While this doesn't definitively answer your question, it may provide some insight: We ran a survey of Chrome XP users (N=819) after Chrome's end of life message was shown in the product (English only). The results showed: - About half the sample plan to continue using Chrome on XP without

Re: Windows XP and Vista Long Term Support Plan

This seems to assume facts not in evidence, namely that people will stop using those machines rather than just living with whatever the last version we updated them to. Do we have any data that shows that that's true? -Ekr On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 1:12 AM, Gervase Markham

Re: Windows XP and Vista Long Term Support Plan

On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 3:35:20 AM UTC-7, keithga...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 3:12:31 AM UTC-5, Gervase Markham wrote: > > On 22/10/16 10:16, keithgallis...@gmail.com wrote: > > > My concern is that by killing digital certificate updates and TLS > > > updates, still

Re: Windows XP and Vista Long Term Support Plan

On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 3:12:31 AM UTC-5, Gervase Markham wrote: > On 22/10/16 10:16, keithgallis...@gmail.com wrote: > > My concern is that by killing digital certificate updates and TLS > > updates, still in use machines whose main purpose is Internet access > > are essentially bricked. >

Re: Windows XP and Vista Long Term Support Plan

On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 4:27:32 AM UTC-5, Martin Thomson wrote: > Yep, I just designated a relatives machine to recycling on that basis. > I could have updated the OS, but they had other better options, so > we're reclaiming the space. I know that neither option is that > pleasant, but

Re: Windows XP and Vista Long Term Support Plan

On 22/10/16 10:16, keithgallis...@gmail.com wrote: > My concern is that by killing digital certificate updates and TLS > updates, still in use machines whose main purpose is Internet access > are essentially bricked. This is a feature, not a bug. If those machines shouldn't be on the Internet,

Re: Windows XP and Vista Long Term Support Plan

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 8:16 PM, wrote: > My concern is that by killing digital certificate updates and TLS updates, > still in use machines whose main purpose is Internet access are essentially > bricked. Yep, I just designated a relatives machine to recycling on

Re: Windows XP and Vista Long Term Support Plan

On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 1:11:16 PM UTC-5, Kyle Huey wrote: > No. These machines should not be on the Internet anymore. If the > operating system vendor is no longer supporting their product with > security releases an out of date TLS stack is a minor problem compared > to the remote code

Re: Windows XP and Vista Long Term Support Plan

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 3:05 AM, wrote: > My point for the above paragraph is that even if Mozilla stops security > updates for ESR 52, these computers will still need to get around on the > Internet. These machines will still need to do log ins and banking. The world

Re: Windows XP and Vista Long Term Support Plan

On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 1:33:06 AM UTC-5, Peter Dolanjski wrote: > Thanks for taking the time to provide thorough feedback. > > 3) For Windows Vista, I don't see where the fire is. I realize that it has > > a vastly smaller user base, but it is close to Window 7 code base and API > > wise.

Re: Windows XP and Vista Long Term Support Plan

Thanks for taking the time to provide thorough feedback. 3) For Windows Vista, I don't see where the fire is. I realize that it has > a vastly smaller user base, but it is close to Window 7 code base and API > wise. I'm sure the engineering team can probably provide a more detailed response on

Re: Windows XP and Vista Long Term Support Plan

I'm just a Developer Edition/Beta user and I have a Windows 10 system. That said, you did ask for opinions from a 'broader audience', so I guess I count. Here are my thoughts such as they are. 1) Mozilla supported Windows 95 for 6 years (1.5.0.12 in 2007) after its last update (2001), Windows

Windows XP and Vista Long Term Support Plan

Hello All, *tl;dr: Tentative plan is to move Windows XP/Vista users to ESR 52. Feel free to comment/discuss.* In this email, I will lay out a tentative long term plan for supporting Windows XP and Vista users. The point of this email is to solicit feedback about the plan from a broader