Re: Intent to unship: TLS 1.0 and TLS 1.1
> [6] https://sql.telemetry.mozilla.org/queries/64283#164115 shows values for > Release, which puts TLS 1.0 between 0.46% and 0.68% depending on the time > of week. TLS 1.1 is virtually non-existent at 0.02%, we could have removed > that already if it weren’t for the fact that this isn’t how TLS version > negotiation works. I just notice that this threshold seems to be low. ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
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 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, and things happen which keep them off the Internet, then hooray. > > > > Gerv > > Like I've said in previous messages on this thread, I agree that XP and Vista > should be placed on ESR 52, but I'm worried about those people who don't have > access to tech support at home (friends, family, a tech store, etc.) to help > them with the next steps of replacing their old machine. It would be good if > Mozilla had some kind of message at the start of the transfer to ESR 52 > stating that they have X amount of time to upgrade. > Feel free to reopen https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1059840 when ready. ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Reverting to VS2013 on central and aurora
On Saturday, May 7, 2016 at 2:18:05 AM UTC-7, Emanuel Hoogeveen wrote: > Well, I think that's debatable ;) The Athlon XP had clock speeds of up to > 2333MHz, though I'm sure the per-clock performance doesn't measure up to > current offerings. But Ion can easily be 5x as fast as Baseline. Of course, > whether that makes a difference depends on what JS you're running. But either > way, people with these processors are getting a double whammy of degraded > performance. I wonder how a Northwood Pentium 4 running Ion would compare with an Athlon XP running Baseline. ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Moving XP to ESR?
On Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 1:20:56 PM UTC-7, Ted Mielczarek wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016, at 04:14 PM, Nils Ohlmeier wrote: > > The good news is that dxr does not find anything using IsXPSP3OrLater(). > > But this looks like we have a bit of version specific code in our tree: > > https://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/search?q=XP_WIN&redirect=false&case=true > > FYI, the "XP" here means "cross-platform", and XP_WIN is set whenever > we're building for Windows. > > > > And on top of that come the costs for maintaining XP machines as part of > > the treeherder setup. > > > > So it is not easy to quantify, but there is a "XP tax" we pay. > > This is true. We hit this with toolchain support, we're actively jumping > through hoops to continue targeting XP with newer versions of MSVC. > > -Ted That is why I asked about killing XP SP2 in the first place. This brings it in line with what MS officially supported in VS2013 and VS2015. I wonder how much of the marketshare is likely XP SP2. ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Intent to switch to Visual Studio 2015
What about the depreciation of XP SP2? ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Intent to deprecate: MacOS 10.6-10.8 support
On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 8:59:20 AM UTC-8, Bobby Holley wrote: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Terrence Cole wrote: > > > We've had this conversation several times in the last few years and I think > > I've finally figured out why it has always felt subtly wrong. > > > > Our share of users on older platforms is disproportionally high compared to > > the market in general because of our decline in market share. People who > > don't want to upgrade their OS generally don't want to "upgrade" their > > browser to the shiny new "chrome" thing the kids are talking about either. > > It is a symptom of a larger problem and it seems like we are continually > > hiding from that problem instead of tackling it head-on. > > > > We should be aggressively cutting support for niche markets and spending > > that effort to increase our market share where it counts: where it's > > growing rather than rapidly shrinking. Telling 1.2% of our (admittedly > > small) market share to, effectively, GTFO, is pretty scary; however, I > > think the alternative is to simply fail as a project as we chase our > > users-by-default into more and more niche markets. If we can't use our > > resources to re-capture 1.2% of the market among people who have modern > > computers and no obligation to love us, then maybe we've already failed. > > > > I don't think it's quite that simple. > > I agree that it's important to recognize that users on older OSes have > lower long-term value to us, because we'll _eventually_ need to stop > supporting them, and there's no guarantee they'll reinstall Firefox if they > move to a new machine. > > However, they _do_ have short-term value, in that their continued use of > Firefox makes the Web better for every other Firefox user. The number of > f***s web developers give about the experience of Firefox users is directly > proportional to the number of Firefox users visiting their sites. The lower > that number goes, the bigger our disadvantage, and the more engineering > heroics we'll need to do to compensate. By the time Opera/Presto went > under, rumor has it that almost all of their resources were going to > web-compat. > > Its a regressive game that favors monopolists, but there you go. Ditching > 1.2% of our users makes it materially more difficult to attract new ones. > So we should only do it if the benefits really outweigh the costs. Though in this case, the main competitor (Chrome) would also be dropping support. In fact they are even worse in that they are dropping all pre-Win7 platforms while I proposed dropping support for only XP SP2. ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Turning off window.Components for the web
On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 11:59:02 AM UTC-8, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > On 2013-03-05 1:58 PM, Bobby Holley wrote: > > > Is shipping it on nightly+aurora but flipping off on beta+release for a > > >> cycle or two an option? > > >> > > > > > > It would take some fiddling, but I could the appropriate machinery to do > > > that, sure. I'd still like to avoid doing it, but it's probably worth > > > having the infrastructure in place. I'll file a bug. > > > > I think doing this behind a MOZ_RELEASE pref makes sense any way since > > we do need a disaster recovery method whenever this ships on the Release > > channel, and having a pref which can be toggled by an add-on hotfix is > > the ideal way to do that. > > > > Cheers, > > Ehsan IE8 and later have Compatibility View lists downloaded from MS's server that lets MS disables things like this site by site. ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
