5 ms·

That would have been the end of me using computers, right then and there. An operating system that updates or upgrades more than about once per decade is movin

by Endy 8y ago

That would have been the end of me using computers, right then and there. An operating system that updates or upgrades more than about once per decade is moving entirely too fast. 5 years about the fastest possible rate that even approaches being reasonable. The fact that Windows has always bent over backwards to provide backward compatibility would be totally invalidated by shifting toward Linux. I run a bunch of DOS programs in Win 7 still, without needing to go through DOSBox, and that's not counting my collection of 3.1 and 9x programs which I actively use. So yes, giving up entirely on the good things that Windows does without respect to the GUI and accepting the practices of Linux/Unix devs who have little or no respect for the past would be nothing short of a catastrophic mistake. Your idea would likely have killed computing forever, in my view, especially enterprise or professional-use computing, and within the first two rapid releases that broke necessary functions. It's the so-called 'Softies' who keep the world running and effective for normal people who don't want to have to figure out how to compile a program just to turn on their computer and do the things they need. And it would have killed home use as well - we don't need network workstations at home with limited control, we need computers that we have full control over, all the time.

subway 8y ago
> And it would have killed home use as well - we don't need network workstations at home with limited control, we need computers that we have full control over, all the time. looks at the state of desktop computing ..and yet, here we are.
justinclift 8y ago
> ... the practices of Linux/Unix devs who have little or no respect for the past Maybe some Linux devs, but many Unix devs have been around a long time and are pretty insistent on backwards compatibility too. ;)
- Zardoz84 8y ago
  shit... There are some Unix software from 80's that runs unmodified on modern Linux. You only need to recompile it.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
    Linux (the kernel) is an extreme outlier in this case because Linus actually cares deeply about compatibility. You don't even need to recompile statically linked old Linux software to have it work in most cases. But otherwise UNIX's compatibility story is pretty damned atrocious because part of its culture is relying on everybody to recompile everything.
    - justinclift 8y ago
      That sounds weird to me. I used to do Solaris SysAdmin stuff from (roughly) the early 2000s. That also had a strong backwards compatibility attitude, sot you should (and generally could) run old Solaris binaries on much newer releases of the OS. Which Unix's had this "pretty damned atrocious" backwards compatibility approach?
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
        Perhaps you're right, I sometimes forget that commercial UNIX's exist. The BSDs are mostly what I was thinking of.
  - Endy 8y ago
    Having to "recompile" it means that it's not unmodified, though. Unmodified would mean that it runs like Windows programs where the same binary files work now as did then.
    - justinclift 8y ago
      Yeah, that's how I took it too. eg being able to run old binaries on newer versions of an OS. My experience across Solaris and Linux has led me to believe it's also been a strong nix thing too, not just a Windows approach. I used to use FreeBSD a lot too, but that was years ago and I don't have clear memories of it's compatibility approach. :/ Which nix's are you thinking of, which don't offer strong backwards compatibility for compiled binaries?
vlovich123 8y ago
And then you have iOS, OSX, ChromeOS, & Android that both upgrade annually. I'm sure you'll be happy with Windows 10 though considering it's the last official Window release. Really it's not though; it's just rolling releases in the background. I'm afraid you have to realize you're in the tail end of the tech adoption cycle[1], either in the late majority or bordering on laggard. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_adopter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_adopter
- Endy 8y ago
  I am quite proudly a lag-behind when it comes to tech within the last decade. The rest of you can go on ahead and suffer all the horrible bugs that would have been found in QA testing, if the testers had been given adequate time and resources. I'll happily arrive after you're done and use the finished product. Also, I've never updated Android OS on a device - every phone and/or tablet I have, has the version of Android it shipped with; whatever that might be. The same goes for iOS, mostly. My old iPad, I knew better than to update the OS. The newer one, I've made the big mistake of upgrading to iOS 12. I'm sorely tempted at the moment to make a list of programs on the device and reset it to get it back to decency. My feeling is, people are allowing the tech companies to release buggy software, they're still buying it, they're still paying for hardware using it and supporting bug-ridden versions. We need to shift the mainstream - and the business world - back to demanding software that works and keeps on working reliably for the life of the business.
  - suby 8y ago
    Are you not getting Android or iOS security updates, then?
    - Endy 8y ago
      What's a security update? I don't expect them to be responsible for my security - that's my burden as the user to make sure that I'm using software and files I personally trust.
      - 8y ago
Santosh83 8y ago
There are no current OSes which upgrade once per decade or 5 years, sadly. Sure Win 7 and 8.1 are there, but on their way out. Everything else is updated much more frequently. I suppose MacOS is the only remotely reasonable alternative once Win 7 and 8.1 are past EOL.
- thekyle 8y ago
  There are plenty of Linux distros that are supported for upwards of 10 years. Debian and CentOS come to mind but Ubuntu 18.04 was also recently announced to have support until 2028.
aasasd 8y ago
> I run a bunch of DOS programs in Win 7 still, without needing to go through DOSBox Afaik pure DOS mode wasn't in Win2000 and XP, and it uses virtualization or something like it.

by Endy 8y ago

subway 8y ago

> And it would have killed home use as well - we don't need network workstations at home with limited control, we need computers that we have full control over, all the time. looks at the state of desktop computing ..and yet, here we are.

justinclift 8y ago

> ... the practices of Linux/Unix devs who have little or no respect for the past Maybe some Linux devs, but many Unix devs have been around a long time and are pretty insistent on backwards compatibility too. ;)

Zardoz84 8y ago
shit... There are some Unix software from 80's that runs unmodified on modern Linux. You only need to recompile it.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  Linux (the kernel) is an extreme outlier in this case because Linus actually cares deeply about compatibility. You don't even need to recompile statically linked old Linux software to have it work in most cases. But otherwise UNIX's compatibility story is pretty damned atrocious because part of its culture is relying on everybody to recompile everything.
  - justinclift 8y ago
    That sounds weird to me. I used to do Solaris SysAdmin stuff from (roughly) the early 2000s. That also had a strong backwards compatibility attitude, sot you should (and generally could) run old Solaris binaries on much newer releases of the OS. Which Unix's had this "pretty damned atrocious" backwards compatibility approach?
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
      Perhaps you're right, I sometimes forget that commercial UNIX's exist. The BSDs are mostly what I was thinking of.
- Endy 8y ago
  Having to "recompile" it means that it's not unmodified, though. Unmodified would mean that it runs like Windows programs where the same binary files work now as did then.
  - justinclift 8y ago
    Yeah, that's how I took it too. eg being able to run old binaries on newer versions of an OS. My experience across Solaris and Linux has led me to believe it's also been a strong nix thing too, not just a Windows approach. I used to use FreeBSD a lot too, but that was years ago and I don't have clear memories of it's compatibility approach. :/ Which nix's are you thinking of, which don't offer strong backwards compatibility for compiled binaries?

vlovich123 8y ago

And then you have iOS, OSX, ChromeOS, & Android that both upgrade annually. I'm sure you'll be happy with Windows 10 though considering it's the last official Window release. Really it's not though; it's just rolling releases in the background. I'm afraid you have to realize you're in the tail end of the tech adoption cycle[1], either in the late majority or bordering on laggard. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_adopter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_adopter

Endy 8y ago
I am quite proudly a lag-behind when it comes to tech within the last decade. The rest of you can go on ahead and suffer all the horrible bugs that would have been found in QA testing, if the testers had been given adequate time and resources. I'll happily arrive after you're done and use the finished product. Also, I've never updated Android OS on a device - every phone and/or tablet I have, has the version of Android it shipped with; whatever that might be. The same goes for iOS, mostly. My old iPad, I knew better than to update the OS. The newer one, I've made the big mistake of upgrading to iOS 12. I'm sorely tempted at the moment to make a list of programs on the device and reset it to get it back to decency. My feeling is, people are allowing the tech companies to release buggy software, they're still buying it, they're still paying for hardware using it and supporting bug-ridden versions. We need to shift the mainstream - and the business world - back to demanding software that works and keeps on working reliably for the life of the business.
- suby 8y ago
  Are you not getting Android or iOS security updates, then?
  - Endy 8y ago
    What's a security update? I don't expect them to be responsible for my security - that's my burden as the user to make sure that I'm using software and files I personally trust.
    - 8y ago

Santosh83 8y ago

There are no current OSes which upgrade once per decade or 5 years, sadly. Sure Win 7 and 8.1 are there, but on their way out. Everything else is updated much more frequently. I suppose MacOS is the only remotely reasonable alternative once Win 7 and 8.1 are past EOL.

thekyle 8y ago
There are plenty of Linux distros that are supported for upwards of 10 years. Debian and CentOS come to mind but Ubuntu 18.04 was also recently announced to have support until 2028.

aasasd 8y ago

> I run a bunch of DOS programs in Win 7 still, without needing to go through DOSBox Afaik pure DOS mode wasn't in Win2000 and XP, and it uses virtualization or something like it.