3 ms·

> It is Microsoft's fault. A software customer doesn't know that a vendor is going to go out of business or get bought by a competitor that discontinues their p

> It is Microsoft's fault. A software customer doesn't know that a vendor is going to go out of business or get bought by a competitor that discontinues their product and promotes an incompatible alternative with seven figure transition costs. It is categorically NOT Microsoft's fault that software vendors are bought or go out of business. It's on the software customer to ensure that they don't get stuck with vendor lock-in. Reverse the situation: A bunch of critical systems which run Linux 2.4 are being compromised by cyber criminals via a kernel exploit. You're going to argue that it's Linus' fault for providing such a great kernel and not supporting it forever? Or that it's Linus' fault vendor XY who hasn't existed since 2 mergers ago chose Linux 2.4 for their product and now aren't around to provide updates for legacy software? > Microsoft are the ones who worked so hard to make sure that software for Windows isn't compatible with not-Windows, creating all their own alternatives to POSIX, OpenGL, Open Firmware and everything else so that it's as difficult as possible for software compatible with Windows XP to be compatible with any Unix or Linux, leaving the user out in the cold if it also isn't compatible with Vista or later. And so does every other operating system on the planet. You cannot take a MacOS binary and run it on Linux. And until very recently you couldn't take a Linux binary and run it on Windows. You could argue that with Linux, the only thing preventing it from running Win32 or MachO binaries is that those operating systems are closed source, but this is the world we live in. If you want a "universal" binary, write it in something like Java. https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/ > The reason there is huge demand for COBOL programmers is that it's more reasonable to hire a COBOL programmer than to discard a working system with a multi-million dollar replacement cost. "Just throw away everything you own and start over from nothing" is only rarely cost effective. Yes, and I feel that I addressed this when I said "because banks are too spendthrift to rewrite their software" It's a business decision. Currently it's cheaper for banks to hire COBOL programmers at obscene rates to fix their software. Eventually, there either won't be COBOL programmers, or they'll be too expensive, and the bean counters will dictate it's time to rewrite.

microcolonel 9y ago
> Reverse the situation: A bunch of critical systems which run Linux 2.4 are being compromised by cyber criminals via a kernel exploit. You're going to argue that it's Linus' fault for providing such a great kernel and not supporting it forever? I think there's a simpler way to think about this. Windows XP still functions for these businesses, and many of them would gladly pay an ongoing subscription fee for support. Sure, Microsoft wants to expand, but I don't see why that has to happen exclusive of supporting their well-loved early 2000s release. I run software which hasn't changed substantially for more than 20 years on a daily basis, and I don't see why Microsoft has to pretend that that's not a use case. > > Microsoft are the ones who worked so hard to make sure that software for Windows isn't compatible with not-Windows, creating all their own alternatives to POSIX, OpenGL, Open Firmware and everything else so that it's as difficult as possible for software compatible with Windows XP to be compatible with any Unix or Linux, leaving the user out in the cold if it also isn't compatible with Vista or later. > And so does every other operating system on the planet. You cannot take a MacOS binary and run it on Linux. And until very recently you couldn't take a Linux binary and run it on Windows. Open Firmware, POSIX, and OpenGL are explicitly not related in any way to binary compatibility. You can run unmodified OpenGL programs (with some abstraction) on Linux and OS X out of the box, and with some fiddling, on Windows as well. It's clear that this is an argument that Microsoft has refused to support standard APIs, not standard ABIs.
- detaro 9y ago
  How many apps are there really that run on the win32 API of Windows XP, but not on the one of Windows 7/8.1/10? Not saying there aren't any, but nearly everything I've seen fail has been coupled to hardware drivers, where other platforms are just as bad, or other outdated APIs, e.g. ancient versions/insecure configurations of Java. This is a big problem in IT, but I don't think it's fair to blame Microsoft more than others for it. Maybe for making as much a mess of Vista as they did, but 7 was still available more than early enough for slow migration. (And at least the NHS had an extended support contract for Windows XP, but ended that at some point, despite (as far as I know) it still being available from MS for other big customers)
AnthonyMouse 9y ago
> It is categorically NOT Microsoft's fault that software vendors are bought or go out of business. It's on the software customer to ensure that they don't get stuck with vendor lock-in. It is Microsoft's fault that the programs only run on Windows XP. If they had used standard open APIs it would have been much easier to port the applications to other platforms to begin with, and more of the original developers would have done so before going out of business. If you want to argue that customers should not buy Windows-specific software you'll get no argument from me, but that is certainly not Microsoft's position. > Reverse the situation: A bunch of critical systems which run Linux 2.4 are being compromised by cyber criminals via a kernel exploit. You're going to argue that it's Linus' fault for providing such a great kernel and not supporting it forever? Linus absolved himself by providing source code. If you really want to keep using Linux 2.4 and patch it yourself, you can, and some companies actually do. > You cannot take a MacOS binary and run it on Linux. https://www.darlinghq.org/ https://www.darlinghq.org/ And that project is in a weak state not for difficulty but for lack of demand, because so many programs that run on one OS already run natively on both since it's so much easier to port between them than between Windows and anything else. > You could argue that with Linux, the only thing preventing it from running Win32 or MachO binaries is that those operating systems are closed source, but this is the world we live in. If you want a "universal" binary, write it in something like Java. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Java_Virtual_Machine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Java_Virtual_Machine > Yes, and I feel that I addressed this when I said "because banks are too spendthrift to rewrite their software" > It's a business decision. That's the point. How is it not also a business decision with Windows XP, which Microsoft has forced everyone to make in a way that many would otherwise not?

microcolonel 9y ago

> Reverse the situation: A bunch of critical systems which run Linux 2.4 are being compromised by cyber criminals via a kernel exploit. You're going to argue that it's Linus' fault for providing such a great kernel and not supporting it forever? I think there's a simpler way to think about this. Windows XP still functions for these businesses, and many of them would gladly pay an ongoing subscription fee for support. Sure, Microsoft wants to expand, but I don't see why that has to happen exclusive of supporting their well-loved early 2000s release. I run software which hasn't changed substantially for more than 20 years on a daily basis, and I don't see why Microsoft has to pretend that that's not a use case. > > Microsoft are the ones who worked so hard to make sure that software for Windows isn't compatible with not-Windows, creating all their own alternatives to POSIX, OpenGL, Open Firmware and everything else so that it's as difficult as possible for software compatible with Windows XP to be compatible with any Unix or Linux, leaving the user out in the cold if it also isn't compatible with Vista or later. > And so does every other operating system on the planet. You cannot take a MacOS binary and run it on Linux. And until very recently you couldn't take a Linux binary and run it on Windows. Open Firmware, POSIX, and OpenGL are explicitly not related in any way to binary compatibility. You can run unmodified OpenGL programs (with some abstraction) on Linux and OS X out of the box, and with some fiddling, on Windows as well. It's clear that this is an argument that Microsoft has refused to support standard APIs, not standard ABIs.

detaro 9y ago
How many apps are there really that run on the win32 API of Windows XP, but not on the one of Windows 7/8.1/10? Not saying there aren't any, but nearly everything I've seen fail has been coupled to hardware drivers, where other platforms are just as bad, or other outdated APIs, e.g. ancient versions/insecure configurations of Java. This is a big problem in IT, but I don't think it's fair to blame Microsoft more than others for it. Maybe for making as much a mess of Vista as they did, but 7 was still available more than early enough for slow migration. (And at least the NHS had an extended support contract for Windows XP, but ended that at some point, despite (as far as I know) it still being available from MS for other big customers)

AnthonyMouse 9y ago

> It is categorically NOT Microsoft's fault that software vendors are bought or go out of business. It's on the software customer to ensure that they don't get stuck with vendor lock-in. It is Microsoft's fault that the programs only run on Windows XP. If they had used standard open APIs it would have been much easier to port the applications to other platforms to begin with, and more of the original developers would have done so before going out of business. If you want to argue that customers should not buy Windows-specific software you'll get no argument from me, but that is certainly not Microsoft's position. > Reverse the situation: A bunch of critical systems which run Linux 2.4 are being compromised by cyber criminals via a kernel exploit. You're going to argue that it's Linus' fault for providing such a great kernel and not supporting it forever? Linus absolved himself by providing source code. If you really want to keep using Linux 2.4 and patch it yourself, you can, and some companies actually do. > You cannot take a MacOS binary and run it on Linux. https://www.darlinghq.org/ https://www.darlinghq.org/ And that project is in a weak state not for difficulty but for lack of demand, because so many programs that run on one OS already run natively on both since it's so much easier to port between them than between Windows and anything else. > You could argue that with Linux, the only thing preventing it from running Win32 or MachO binaries is that those operating systems are closed source, but this is the world we live in. If you want a "universal" binary, write it in something like Java. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Java_Virtual_Machine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Java_Virtual_Machine > Yes, and I feel that I addressed this when I said "because banks are too spendthrift to rewrite their software" > It's a business decision. That's the point. How is it not also a business decision with Windows XP, which Microsoft has forced everyone to make in a way that many would otherwise not?