4 ms·

Yikes, the anti-Windows crowd is strident today. Yeah, cmd.exe is crap, and if you're expecting to use a Unix workflow rather than learn how things work in Wind

Yikes, the anti-Windows crowd is strident today. Yeah, cmd.exe is crap, and if you're expecting to use a Unix workflow rather than learn how things work in Windows, you're going to have a bad time. I'm not sure that religiously sticking to the baggage and constraints of obsolete hardware from fifty years ago is really a great ideal either... But you just can't change existing shit willynilly in Windows, with the kind of install base and legacy it has, or you'll break things in a way that has been historically unacceptable in Redmond.

vetinari 8y ago
> I'm not sure that religiously sticking to the baggage and constraints of obsolete hardware > But you just can't change existing shit willynilly in Windows, with the kind of install base and legacy it has, You do see the irony, right?
- tom_ 8y ago
  I think his (?) point is that if you don't have the backwards-compatibility goals of Windows, you can afford to be - and perhaps should be - a lot more adventurous. Which is something POSIX systems have summarily failed to be in this respect, for all that they've managed to polish that turd to an acceptable shine.
  - vetinari 8y ago
    What exactly are backwards-compatibility goals of Windows? Are they that different from backwards-compatibility goals of POSIX systems? I read the above sentences as: 1) the legacy on $SYSTEMS_I_DONT_LIKE is bad 2) the legacy on $SYSTEM_I_LIKE is there for a reason.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
      > What exactly are backwards-compatibility goals of Windows? Are they that different from backwards-compatibility goals of POSIX systems? I can still run software written for Windows 95, without recompilation, with a pretty high success rate. As far as I'm aware, only Linux has that level of ABI compatibility and unfortunately it's completely broken by userspace. Often you can't even run the same binary on two different distributions without recompilation.
      - vetinari 8y ago
        The ABI is only part of backward compatibility. From another POV, you can run software designed for VT100 or other terminal in seventies on any Linux or Unix today, (though it may be recompiled. That legacy mentioned in previous post is that terminal is still considered serial device with specific protocol). There are companies, that do exactly that in production. You would be hard pressed to find DOS-era software that bangs on buffer starting at 0xB800:0000 that still works in 64-bit Windows.
        bitcrazed 8y ago
        > You would be hard pressed to find DOS-era software that bangs on buffer starting at 0xB800:0000 that still works in 64-bit Windows. True, though 32-bit editions of Windows still include NTVDM which runs Win16 apps! Microsoft is pretty fanatical about backward compatibility. Why? It's the #1 reason most enterprises and many users continue to pay to install/upgrade to Windows. Breaking backward compatibility with existing executables (not source-code) is a violation of the trust that we've earned with customers for the last 40 years or so. Of course, some products/features/etc. are discontinued on newer OS', etc. but the core essential platforms are rarely discontinued. True fact: Windows still runs VB6 apps - millions of them. EVERY DAY!
OnlyRepliesToBS 8y ago
For fucking good reason: Microsoft is fickle.

vetinari 8y ago

> I'm not sure that religiously sticking to the baggage and constraints of obsolete hardware > But you just can't change existing shit willynilly in Windows, with the kind of install base and legacy it has, You do see the irony, right?

tom_ 8y ago
I think his (?) point is that if you don't have the backwards-compatibility goals of Windows, you can afford to be - and perhaps should be - a lot more adventurous. Which is something POSIX systems have summarily failed to be in this respect, for all that they've managed to polish that turd to an acceptable shine.
- vetinari 8y ago
  What exactly are backwards-compatibility goals of Windows? Are they that different from backwards-compatibility goals of POSIX systems? I read the above sentences as: 1) the legacy on $SYSTEMS_I_DONT_LIKE is bad 2) the legacy on $SYSTEM_I_LIKE is there for a reason.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
    > What exactly are backwards-compatibility goals of Windows? Are they that different from backwards-compatibility goals of POSIX systems? I can still run software written for Windows 95, without recompilation, with a pretty high success rate. As far as I'm aware, only Linux has that level of ABI compatibility and unfortunately it's completely broken by userspace. Often you can't even run the same binary on two different distributions without recompilation.
    - vetinari 8y ago
      The ABI is only part of backward compatibility. From another POV, you can run software designed for VT100 or other terminal in seventies on any Linux or Unix today, (though it may be recompiled. That legacy mentioned in previous post is that terminal is still considered serial device with specific protocol). There are companies, that do exactly that in production. You would be hard pressed to find DOS-era software that bangs on buffer starting at 0xB800:0000 that still works in 64-bit Windows.
      - bitcrazed 8y ago
        > You would be hard pressed to find DOS-era software that bangs on buffer starting at 0xB800:0000 that still works in 64-bit Windows. True, though 32-bit editions of Windows still include NTVDM which runs Win16 apps! Microsoft is pretty fanatical about backward compatibility. Why? It's the #1 reason most enterprises and many users continue to pay to install/upgrade to Windows. Breaking backward compatibility with existing executables (not source-code) is a violation of the trust that we've earned with customers for the last 40 years or so. Of course, some products/features/etc. are discontinued on newer OS', etc. but the core essential platforms are rarely discontinued. True fact: Windows still runs VB6 apps - millions of them. EVERY DAY!

OnlyRepliesToBS 8y ago

For fucking good reason: Microsoft is fickle.