4 ms·

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?