Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
mozilla.dev.planning
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion Proposal: Raise minimum requirements for 1.9.2 on Windows to WinXP SP3
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Michael Connor  
View profile  
 More options Apr 14 2009, 2:10 am
Newsgroups: mozilla.dev.planning
From: Michael Connor <mcon...@mozilla.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 02:10:02 -0400
Local: Tues, Apr 14 2009 2:10 am
Subject: Re: Proposal: Raise minimum requirements for 1.9.2 on Windows to WinXP SP3
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

On 14-Apr-09, at 1:11 AM, John J. Barton wrote:

>> On July 13, 2010, Microsoft will end all support for Windows 2000  
>> (all service packs) and Windows XP Service Pack 2 (XP SP1 and the  
>> original XP have already passed their end of support).  This means  
>> that after this date, these OS versions will not get any security  
>> updates and will not receive any support from Microsoft.  Service  
>> Pack 3 is a free upgrade for all XP users.

> I wonder if this is true. I would believe "free upgrade for all XP  
> licensees".  Anyone with a corporate install Windows computer from a  
> former employer or other circumstance may not have access SP3. I  
> wonder how many of us there are? Betcha a lot more than you'd think.  
> It's  not like SP3 is important (or Vista for that matter).

If you don't have the license (i.e. if it was part of a corporate site  
license, and you left the company with the machine) then technically  
you aren't using the software legally.  I suppose there's some number  
of people using software without actually having a license to that  
software.  I don't believe we should make a decision based on users  
who can't upgrade their OS because they aren't using it legally.

> > Relevant Links:

> Microsoft policy is not so important as what the installed base  
> actually contains. Is there info on that?

Microsoft policy is completely important, if that's when security  
updates stop happening.  I don't think we want to put time and  
resources into operating systems which will rapidly be exploited.  https://isc.sans.org/survivaltime.html
  has a fun graph which shows average time to exploit an unpatched  
system exposed to the Internet.

If the installed base wants to be zombies, that's fine, but that  
doesn't mean we should invest in giving them one more reason to expose  
themselves.

-- Mike


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2012 Google