View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
June 06, 2012
Re: Windows 2000 support
"Dmitry Olshansky" <dmitry.olsh@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:jqmsv9$2ob2$1@digitalmars.com...
> On 06.06.2012 6:09, tim krimm wrote:
>
>>
>> BTW - I am posting from a Windows 2000 machine.
>> Windows 2000 is handed for older machines.
>> It is also good for bare bone machines from tiger direct.
>> Yes I also use linux on these machines in dual boot mode.
>>
>
> Using outdated OS to connect to the internet is one of biggest mistakes 
> ever. For instance doesn't W2k happen to have this so convenient for 
> malware IE6 ? ;) + There are various security breaches that nobody will 
> fix ASAP anymore.
>

Who's going to bother making exploits that'll only affect the few Win2K 
boxes out there? ;)
June 06, 2012
Re: Windows 2000 support
On 06.06.2012 13:22, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Dmitry Olshansky"<dmitry.olsh@gmail.com>  wrote in message
> news:jqmsv9$2ob2$1@digitalmars.com...
>> On 06.06.2012 6:09, tim krimm wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> BTW - I am posting from a Windows 2000 machine.
>>> Windows 2000 is handed for older machines.
>>> It is also good for bare bone machines from tiger direct.
>>> Yes I also use linux on these machines in dual boot mode.
>>>
>>
>> Using outdated OS to connect to the internet is one of biggest mistakes
>> ever. For instance doesn't W2k happen to have this so convenient for
>> malware IE6 ? ;) + There are various security breaches that nobody will
>> fix ASAP anymore.
>>
>
> Who's going to bother making exploits that'll only affect the few Win2K
> boxes out there? ;)
>

Why not if they just work? Common, it's the same kernel, just one major 
revision behind.

DOS on the other hand is far more safe in this regard :) I'd say FreeDOS 
is a superior alternative for Win2k dinosaurs.


-- 
Dmitry Olshansky
June 06, 2012
Re: Windows 2000 support
On 2012-06-06 00:36, Paulo Pinto wrote:

> This is the hard reality of UNIX systems, that many aren't aware of
> because they only know one specific system.
>
> Long time ago, 1999-2003, I had my share of pain supporting server
> applications across Aix, HP-UX, Solaris, Linux, BSD besides Windows.
>
> The one that gave us more headaches was HP-UX, due to the archaic
> compiler available on the system and the 32-64 bit transition happening
> on those days.

That's one thing that Mac OS X got right, handling multiple 
architectures. Universal binaries (executables and (dynamic) libraries) 
that contain code for multiple architectures. Basically all system 
libraries are compiled for both 32 and 64bit (and most for PowerPC as 
well). It really doesn't matter if you compile your code in 32 or 64bit, 
it just works.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
June 06, 2012
Re: Windows 2000 support
On 2012-06-06 11:22, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

> Who's going to bother making exploits that'll only affect the few Win2K
> boxes out there? ;)

Not new ones. But there's already a lot of them out there, I assume.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
June 06, 2012
Re: Windows 2000 support
On Wednesday, 6 June 2012 at 11:04:25 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2012-06-06 00:36, Paulo Pinto wrote:
>
>> This is the hard reality of UNIX systems, that many aren't 
>> aware of
>> because they only know one specific system.
>>
>> Long time ago, 1999-2003, I had my share of pain supporting 
>> server
>> applications across Aix, HP-UX, Solaris, Linux, BSD besides 
>> Windows.
>>
>> The one that gave us more headaches was HP-UX, due to the 
>> archaic
>> compiler available on the system and the 32-64 bit transition 
>> happening
>> on those days.
>
> That's one thing that Mac OS X got right, handling multiple 
> architectures. Universal binaries (executables and (dynamic) 
> libraries) that contain code for multiple architectures. 
> Basically all system libraries are compiled for both 32 and 
> 64bit (and most for PowerPC as well). It really doesn't matter 
> if you compile your code in 32 or 64bit, it just works.

Another possibility is to follow something like Native Oberon had.

Use bytecodes as executable file format, and compile on the 
installation.

This brings simpler executable file formats, but requires some 
form of compiler as part of the operating system, and forces 
everyone to use the same compiler.

--
Paulo
June 06, 2012
Re: Windows 2000 support
On Wednesday, 6 June 2012 at 04:42:13 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

>
> Honestly though, if it were purely up to me, I'd just go with 
> the tact of
> saying that we'll support whatever versions of Windows that 
> Microsoft
> supports, and anything that happens to work on older versions 
> will work, and
> anything that doesn't, oh well.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

I understand that it is a lot of work for Phobos and for the run 
time.
So we should put an XP+ requirement on the libraries, agreed.

I also know writing your own "stub libraries" is a lot of work, 
but that is OK.

1) I just asking that we try to keep the XP+ requirement out of 
DMD,
not the libraries.

2) I am also asking this only if it is not a lot of work.
When it becomes difficult than stop doing the win2k support.

Is it already difficult to keep the XP+ requirement out of the 
DMD compiler?
Is it a few lines of code or is it a big fix?
I think 2.053 was the last version that supported win2k.
June 06, 2012
Re: Windows 2000 support
On Wednesday, June 06, 2012 15:11:28 Tim Krimm wrote:
> On Wednesday, 6 June 2012 at 04:42:13 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > Honestly though, if it were purely up to me, I'd just go with
> > the tact of
> > saying that we'll support whatever versions of Windows that
> > Microsoft
> > supports, and anything that happens to work on older versions
> > will work, and
> > anything that doesn't, oh well.
> > 
> > - Jonathan M Davis
> 
> I understand that it is a lot of work for Phobos and for the run
> time.
> So we should put an XP+ requirement on the libraries, agreed.
> 
> I also know writing your own "stub libraries" is a lot of work,
> but that is OK.
> 
> 1) I just asking that we try to keep the XP+ requirement out of
> DMD,
> not the libraries.
> 
> 2) I am also asking this only if it is not a lot of work.
> When it becomes difficult than stop doing the win2k support.
> 
> Is it already difficult to keep the XP+ requirement out of the
> DMD compiler?
> Is it a few lines of code or is it a big fix?
> I think 2.053 was the last version that supported win2k.

Given how much Walter likes stuff to run on pretty much any machine ever and 
dislikes breaking backwards compatibility (he's probably the main reason that 
we had any Win9x support in druntime and Phobos at all), I'd expect that he 
wouldn't purposefully doing anything to break compatability with Win2K - 
especially since the compiler isn't the sort of program which is likely to 
need the newer system calls. So, if dmd doesn't work on Win2K, I very much 
doubt that he did that on purpose, but given how integral druntime is to 
running a D program, I would generally have guessed that any Win2K issues were 
there rather than in dmd itself, but I suppose that that depends on whatever's 
failing. If dmd's not working for you, you can always create a bug report, and 
Walter may take care of it. But I really don't know of anything in the 
compiler which would require a newer OS.

- Jonathan M Davis
June 06, 2012
Re: Windows 2000 support
On Wednesday, 6 June 2012 at 15:39:31 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 06, 2012 15:11:28 Tim Krimm wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 6 June 2012 at 04:42:13 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
>> wrote:
>> > Honestly though, if it were purely up to me, I'd just go with
>> > the tact of
>> > saying that we'll support whatever versions of Windows that
>> > Microsoft
>> > supports, and anything that happens to work on older versions
>> > will work, and
>> > anything that doesn't, oh well.
>> > 
>> > - Jonathan M Davis
>> 
>> I understand that it is a lot of work for Phobos and for the 
>> run
>> time.
>> So we should put an XP+ requirement on the libraries, agreed.
>> 
>> I also know writing your own "stub libraries" is a lot of work,
>> but that is OK.
>> 
>> 1) I just asking that we try to keep the XP+ requirement out of
>> DMD,
>> not the libraries.
>> 
>> 2) I am also asking this only if it is not a lot of work.
>> When it becomes difficult than stop doing the win2k support.
>> 
>> Is it already difficult to keep the XP+ requirement out of the
>> DMD compiler?
>> Is it a few lines of code or is it a big fix?
>> I think 2.053 was the last version that supported win2k.
>
> Given how much Walter likes stuff to run on pretty much any 
> machine ever and
> dislikes breaking backwards compatibility (he's probably the 
> main reason that
> we had any Win9x support in druntime and Phobos at all), I'd 
> expect that he
> wouldn't purposefully doing anything to break compatability 
> with Win2K -
> especially since the compiler isn't the sort of program which 
> is likely to
> need the newer system calls. So, if dmd doesn't work on Win2K, 
> I very much
> doubt that he did that on purpose, but given how integral 
> druntime is to
> running a D program, I would generally have guessed that any 
> Win2K issues were
> there rather than in dmd itself, but I suppose that that 
> depends on whatever's
> failing. If dmd's not working for you, you can always create a 
> bug report, and
> Walter may take care of it. But I really don't know of anything 
> in the
> compiler which would require a newer OS.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

DMD runs, but the programs generated no longer worked.
I think it was the run time and/or phobos library, and I am OK 
with that.
I just wanted to make sure that DMD was not also creating 
dependencies on XP+.

I am still a novice at D, so sometimes my questions or concerns 
may sound
"a little stupid at times"

Right now my interests are slanted towards the embedded world, in 
which case the run time and phobo's libraries etc. with have to 
be minimized any way.


Thanks for the help and information.
June 06, 2012
Re: Windows 2000 support
06.06.2012 21:23, Tim Krimm написал:
> DMD runs, but the programs generated no longer worked.
> I think it was the run time and/or phobos library, and I am OK with that.
> I just wanted to make sure that DMD was not also creating dependencies
> on XP+.

All information here:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6024
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/druntime/pull/212



-- 
Денис В. Шеломовский
Denis V. Shelomovskij
June 07, 2012
Re: Windows 2000 support
On Wednesday, 6 June 2012 at 17:31:11 UTC, Denis Shelomovskij 
wrote:
> 06.06.2012 21:23, Tim Krimm написал:
>> DMD runs, but the programs generated no longer worked.
>> I think it was the run time and/or phobos library, and I am OK 
>> with that.
>> I just wanted to make sure that DMD was not also creating 
>> dependencies
>> on XP+.
>
> All information here:
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6024
> https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/druntime/pull/212

OK, go for it.
Next ›   Last »
1 2 3
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home