Hendrik Boom <hend...@topoi.pooq.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 09:17:29PM +0100, Simon Hobson wrote: >> >> So the analogy is, I wouldn't expect "support" for all this "new" >> stuff on an old vehicle. Similarly, as other have suggested, if I >> was running very old hardware, I'd probably not be too worried about >> being able to run all the latest and greatest software on it. > > And why think that the latest software is the greatest.
I don't - it's a turn of phrase "latest and greatest". I forget about the number of people here with different cultural backgrounds. > Bugfixes make > old software better, and so in that sense later is greater, but for > the most part I see a lot of new software be buggy and bloated. > I wouldn't want a lot of this new-fangled stuff on any machine, new or > old. I agree. I frequently look at the newer versions and think something along the lines of "what a pile of ****", especially with things like MS changing the UI whenever there's an R in the month ! >> So there's an argument for dropping support for an old and little used >> architecture for NEW VERSIONS - leave the older versions in the >> repos so that people can still install a system, but make it clear >> that this won't be the latest and greatest version. There then comes >> the issue of ongoing bugfixes - and my assumption would be that only >> serious and/or security related bugs would get fixed in it. > > In a world where most of the new hardware contains unauditable > firmware, that's tantamount to giving up any hope for security. It's all a balancing act. How much effort to put into updates for "old" stuff - do you keep supporting version1, 2, 3, ... when the package is up to whatever number it is ? And what level of support - security fixes, other bug fixes, feature upgrades ? _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
