Summer of Code

John Bailey rekkanoryo at
Tue Mar 25 13:55:04 EDT 2008

Mark Doliner wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 00:43:01 -0400, John Bailey wrote
>> I'm certainly not intending to suggest we completely ignore .NET 
>> simply because of these issues, but MFC does gain us the advantage 
>> of working on Windows NT 4.0, Windows 98, and Windows ME
> I don't think we should worry very much about supporting operating systems
> that have been obsolete for over 6 years, and not supported by Microsoft for 2
> years.

By that same token, GTK+ 2.0.x was last released on 2002-11-20 and has gone
unsupported by its developers for quite some time.  GTK+ 2.2.x was last released
on 2003-09-04 and GTK+ 2.4.x was last released on 2004-10-12.  Both of these
have also been unsupported by the developers for quite some time.  All of these
GTK+ releases are obsolete, yet we still support them, when supporting them
gains us little except more of a mess of preprocessor directives in our code to
disable or work around things that don't work with these older GTK+ versions.

If we're going to actively ignore supporting a product (whose support would come
mostly for free by using compilers that are readily available, such as mingw,
and not going overboard to add crazy stupid stuff like the official IM clients
do) simply because the developers no longer support it, then we should drop
support for anything older than GTK+ 2.6.0 (which I have stated my desire for on
numerous occasions), and more likely 2.8.0.

> To put things in perspective a little, OS-X wasn't out yet, the current
> version of Red Hat was 7, and version 2.4.0 of the Linux kernel was about to
> be released.

I see your point, and in principle, I agree.  But this is a double-edged sword
and should be treated as such.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <>

More information about the Devel mailing list