Same here! I'm using snow leopard and not planning to change that.
Le 31/07/12 20:44, Dina Schneidman a écrit : > completely agree, I am one of those users who can stay happily with > the same OS for 3 years :) > "if it works, don't touch!" > > On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Barak Raveh barak.raveh@gmail.com wrote: >> I believe backward compatibility = more potential users. Snow leopard was >> released 3 years ago and Apple ended it support only this July >> (unofficially). It still must have millions of people that have it on their >> lap-tops (some in our lab?). Why losing them as potential IMP users if it is >> not absolutely necessary? I believe we should be certain we provide very >> important functionalities before we drop backward compatibility (this also >> goes for dependencies), since usually, there's no good reason for it. >> >> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Daniel Russel drussel@gmail.com wrote: >>> It is really not clear to me how much backwards support is worth it. >>> >>> >>> For mac os, Apple doesn't do patches for versions older than the current >>> -1, I believe. So no one should be running 10.6 at this point as they can't >>> get security updates. So supporting that doesn't seem worthwhile. >>> >>> For linux, everywhere I have been it is either upgrade within 6 months or >>> so of CentOS/RHEL/Ubuntu being upgraded or upgrade to every other version of >>> Fedora. So again, its not clear that we benefit anyone by supporting older >>> versions here either. >>> >>> For windows, I don't think anyone else will manage to build IMP :-) (I >>> failed twice), so supporting old compilers there doesn't buy us much either. >>> >>> So while it seems nice in theory, I don't see that there is much benefit >>> in practice to go far back. Has someone been at an institution where older >>> than the above was used? >>> >>> On Jul 30, 2012, at 5:16 PM, Barak Raveh barak.raveh@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> Good point (and Daniel said something similar in different words I think). >>> >>> So perhaps as a policy, we can say: "we give XX (2-3) years backward >>> compatibility, but for rare and true necessities (e.g., python >>> multiprocessing), you must upgrade your dependencies in order to use IMP >>> since it's too important and helpful ; And if possible and not too >>> complicated, we will strive to provide partial functionality even without >>> such upgrade (e.g., you will have IMP but without python multiprocessing)." >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Ben Webb ben@salilab.org wrote: >>>> On 07/30/2012 04:52 PM, Barak Raveh wrote: >>>>> I had 2-3 years in mind :) quite an arbitrary figure though. >>>> >>>> Right, this is how I chose the most recent versions of Boost to support >>>> originally. But it makes sense to agree on an "XX" as you suggest. I think 2 >>>> years is reasonable. >>>> >>>> >>>>> It's just that flawed backward compatibility is usually not due to >>>>> amazing technological breakthroughs we cannot live with out, but >>>>> probably due to some package changing the name of function X to function >>>>> Y, or a few #include statements that need to be altered... >>>> >>>> True, I think we can live without some fancy CXX11 features. More >>>> annoying is the lack of some Boost classes and Python modules (only very >>>> very recent versions of Python ship with the multiprocessing module, for >>>> example). >>>> >>>> >>>> Ben >>>> -- >>>> ben@salilab.org http://salilab.org/~ben/ >>>> "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data." >>>> - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Barak >>> _______________________________________________ >>> IMP-dev mailing list >>> IMP-dev@salilab.org >>> https://salilab.org/mailman/listinfo/imp-dev >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Barak >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IMP-dev mailing list >> IMP-dev@salilab.org >> https://salilab.org/mailman/listinfo/imp-dev >> > _______________________________________________ > IMP-dev mailing list > IMP-dev@salilab.org > https://salilab.org/mailman/listinfo/imp-dev