4 ms·
Both Windows and Linux are distinguished for their pathological conviction to never break userspace. Linux has its warts because of this, but since it's 10 year
by adrusi 11y ago
Both Windows and Linux are distinguished for their pathological conviction to never break userspace. Linux has its warts because of this, but since it's 10 years younger than DOS and since, as a Unix kernel, it was always very clear what the kernel should and should not do, it doesn't have quite the trail of hacks seen in Windows.
Windows has broken legacy programs though. In Windows 7 a lot of old programs stopped working in the consumer editions of the OS. I don't know if they've continued making their "professional" editions that provide comparability. I suppose that's a reasonable strategy to encourage developers to update their software without killing user productivity, which could workout for the best in the long run.
- digi_owl 11y agoLinux the kernel yes. but Linux user space is notoriously against dealing with backwards compatibility. As for Windows, best i can tell the problem was Win16 on 64-bit Windows. My father ran into that regarding some old solitaire programs he had been keeping around.
- cyphar 11y agoNit: There's no such thing as the "Linux userspace". The GNU/Linux userspace is a collection of many different pieces of software (including the GNU tooling and all of the FreeDesktop stuff).
- digi_owl 11y agoYes, but outside of the kernel, and maybe the GNU tools, there seems to be very little willingness to entertain the need for backwards compatibility.
- cyphar 11y agoMy issue was with the term "Linux userspace". I agree with the sentiment that many components of a modern GNU/Linux system don't seem to like the idea of backwards compatibility.