Timeline for Are questions about legacy products inherently off-topic on Server Fault?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 11, 2020 at 10:00 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Oct 14, 2015 at 11:05 | comment | added | Frank N | As a Freelancer, around 80% of my work involces legacy systems, one kind or another... and in private: No, I am not updating my Win7 anytime soon, nor my still paid-once Photoshop, nor ... | |
| Oct 9, 2015 at 8:46 | vote | accept | HBruijn | ||
| Oct 7, 2015 at 16:11 | comment | added | the-wabbit | While Server 2003 has gone out of Extended Support, it still will see some use in long-living product lines where an upgrade is not feasible without significant changes to the overall infrastructure (like in industry automation where you would need to throw away half of your production line just to be able to upgrade to 64-bit Server 2012). I would consider it still to be on-topic. Especially since the number of knowledgeable people and publicly available resources is going to decrease rapidly, hope for an answer from a Serverfaultee might be the last straw to clutch at. | |
| Oct 7, 2015 at 13:11 | comment | added | TheCleaner | I had actually made the comment in my answer (serverfault.com/questions/726785/…) that I thought it was likely that folks on SF would potentially close a question about XP these days. But I agree with your answer overall, as well as Falcon's. | |
| Oct 5, 2015 at 19:21 | comment | added | Katherine Villyard | Some people are required to keep data for X years for compliance reasons, unfortunately. (Virtualize them all onto non-network-connected VMs! er, if possible.) At the same time, well. Sometimes the answer is, "Sorry, man. Upgrade." If it's not a legal compliance thing and is instead management being stingy or whatever, well, maybe that's a legit argument for them to spend, like Sobrique said. | |
| Oct 5, 2015 at 15:21 | comment | added | yagmoth555 Mod | I agree, as often old answer can be re-used in newer version. Not to mention support from company is a debate. As even XP is still supported if you paid by contract with MS, even if in fact it's EOL 1 year ago. | |
| Oct 5, 2015 at 12:02 | comment | added | Sobrique | I would agree - we all know legacy is an ongoing headache that we'd like to be rid of. But sometimes additional constraints apply that the IT guy in the middle has no control over. Even if the answer is simply "Upgrade, because this problem isn't present in X" - that's the start of a business case that helps me get the funding to do it. | |
| Oct 5, 2015 at 10:37 | comment | added | Rob Moir | As much as questions on Windows 2003 or prehistoric Red Hat distros might make me cringe, I think this has to be the answer. A system that was running on Monday doesn't magically turn into a pumpkin on Friday because a support date goes by. Having said that, how willing will the people asking questions be to hear "you need to upgrade" as a (sensible, when there's reason to believe it might help) answer? | |
| Oct 5, 2015 at 9:33 | comment | added | jscott | I have to +1 this. We can "best practice" and "unsupported version" every such question to death... but that won't change the fact that as a professional, one may face having to provide support for legacy products. | |
| Oct 5, 2015 at 7:54 | history | answered | HBruijnMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |