Re: Last Version of Cygwin for XP

[Warren Young <wyml@etr-usa.com>]

On Feb 12, 2016, at 2:58 PM, Erik Soderquist <ErikSoderquist@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Warren Young wrote:
> <snip>
>> I hope not.  Extended support ended nearly two years ago.
> 
> ...why waste the resources on newer (and more bloated) packages?

The same blade cuts both ways.  The small and shrinking percentage of Cygwin + XP users aren’t worth much resource spent on the Cygwin side.

Coat your XP boxes in amber and keep on using them, if you must, but any updates you still get are pure bonus at this point.

> I get very tired of people consistently implying (or
> outright saying) that not upgrading XP is some form of stupidity or
> insanity.

Yes, well, when there are still millions of XP-based ATMs out there, I think I have sufficient justification for reflexive shaming. [1]

The Home Depot and Target breaches basically came down to unpatched XP boxes. [2]

> Would I trust one of these hosts on the internet at all?

Of all the XP machines in the world, what percentage have no reason to be on the Internet in 2016?

I suspect there are more cases of low-regard Internet-connected XP boxes than carefully-firewalled cases like yours:

- grandma’s email machine
- the Steam PC in the kids’ room
- the embedded PC inside the Internet-connected kiosk
- the machine driving the vinyl cutter at Bill’s Sign Shop…

Since these boxes are likely to end up as hosts for a botnet, I’m not willing to say it’s just their own lookout.  Their disregard is causing problems for the rest of us.


[1] http://goo.gl/9Zf3pw
[2] http://goo.gl/EJ5tiY
--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple