Hi, On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 4:16 PM, blz <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2/2/2018 17:32 PM, David Sommerseth wrote: >> >> On 30/01/18 10:33, Samuli Seppänen wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Il 29/01/2018 20:09, Selva Nair ha scritto: >>>> >>>> (Cross posting to users and devel) >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> 2.4.x needs to support, Vista, isn't it? >>> >>> Good question and we have discussed in the past. Windows Vista is no >>> longer supported by Microsoft: >>> >>> >>> <https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/13853/windows-lifecycle-fact-sheet> >>> >>> But then again, we do provide installers which work on Windows XP, which >>> is similarly EOL. So I guess we do support Windows Vista for the time >>> being. >> >> >> <https://community.openvpn.net/openvpn/wiki/SupportedVersions#SupportedWindowsversions> >> >> Vista is currently in full support for 2.4.4. WinXP is being phased out >> when >> 2.3 hits "Old stable support". But we can certainly discuss the value of >> supporting Vista when Microsoft does not officially support it. I'd be in >> favour of supporting only Win7 and newer. >> >> Also compare this to our Linux support strategies. We dropped RHEL5 >> support >> once Red Hat dropped the support officially too. > > > Artificially limiting what Windows version a binary release of a general > win32 program can be used on is a trend I I really wish would stop. Not > everyone has the luxury of using a newer OS version for various reasons. I > do understand there is a need to move on, but I know many people who are > still using Windows 2003 Server as well as XP for various legitimate > reasons. Iif a program is still capable of being built and run on an older > Windows if the right compiler configuration is used, then it should be used. > You don't have to provide full support, just allowing it to run and putting > a prominent disclaimer stating that support and testing for XP/2003/Vista is > very limited or non-existant should be enough. > > I can understand completely dropping support for XP/2003/Vista if one is > making universal/metro or newer .NET programs, etc, but not really for > regular ol' win32 (winapi) based programs.
The <regular ol' winapi program> argument is the most ludicrous one I've heard. Just because something can be built doesn't mean we should endorse it and give users the wrong impression that it would be safe to use it. IMO, its important to stop supporting or encouraging the use of OS versions for which the vendor provides no security updates. Especially so on a proprietary system like Windows where we cannot possibly keep track of, or fix, bugs in CAPI or SCM, or anything native, by ourselves. Vista has fallen into that category and we've already supported it more than 6 months beyond the end of vendor support. Else we'll be opening users to any number of vulnerabilities as we'll be relying on native APIs that do not get updates. Some feature or other of OpenVPN depends on several Windows libraries. Bugs in which could critically affect its operation. I do not use Windows for any critical use at home or work, so my view may be biased. But I provide support for unfortunate users who do, and have no sympathy for those who cling on to their Windows 98 or 2003. That said, we do have some old Windows systems in use for controlling legacy equipment and data acquisition, retained mostly for lack of $$ needed for upgrades. So I do understand why they are still out there. But we won't even put them on the network, let alone run anything like openvpn. Selva ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Openvpn-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openvpn-users
