3 ms·

> Doesn't that mean Linux is entirely broken? Isn't the whole point of OSes that things that used to work, keep working? "Broken" is a strong word. "Different"

> Doesn't that mean Linux is entirely broken? Isn't the whole point of OSes that things that used to work, keep working? "Broken" is a strong word. "Different" might be more fitting. While I don't think anyone in the world of Linux and Linux-distros work with the explicit aim of breaking compatibility, you have to realize that Linux and most Linux-distros are built entirely around open-source software. Most users install software via a distro-provided package-manager which fetches binaries from a repo. These binaries have been built from source, by the distro-vendor, specifically for that distro. That means Linux compatibility traditionally has been more about source-level and compile-time compatibility more so than 100% uncompromised binary compatibility. If a change breaks binary compatibility, but the distro/system as a whole still builds fine, that's still compatible in most day-to-day scenarios of a common Linux end-user. And unconstrained by having to maintain strict binary compatibility, it also allows developers to clean up historical garbage and technical debt they otherwise couldn't. This approach obviously has both drawbacks and advantages, but calling it "broken" seems unfair, overly opinionated and really just wrong.

wolfgke 8y ago
TLDR: The developers of the GNU/Linux userland libraries do not care about binary compatibility.
- josteink 8y ago
  Binary compatibility is only a pressing issue if the majority of the software you run is closed source and not provided by your distro. Why waste time maintaining something which is not needed?
  - wolfgke 8y ago
    > Binary compatibility is only a pressing issue if the majority of the software you run is closed source and not provided by your distro. Binary compatibility is a very pressing issue if there exist software that is closed source and you want to have more users than just some nerds.
    - josteink 8y ago
      I don’t care about closed source software. I don’t care about massive non-nerd adoption of Linux. None of those things benefit me or drives the things I care about. Either way: The enormous success of Linux despite these issues seems to be evidence contrary to your claim.
badsectoracula 8y ago
> "Broken" is a strong word. "Different" might be more fitting. No, "broken" is a perfectly fitting word, an application not running is broken, not different.
- v_lisivka 8y ago
  Linux is working perfectly on lot of servers, computers, smartphones. It holds steady third place in the world rating for desktops, first place for smartphones, dominant at server/embedded/supercomputer markets. If a developer released an app which cannot be running at these platforms under Linux, then app is broken, of course. Why you blame perfectly working OS for developer fault?
  - badsectoracula 8y ago
    Because it is the OS that broke backwards compatibility and caused the application to stop working. That the kernel is used in "servers, computers, smartphones" and wherever else metric of popularity doesn't magically make applications run. Developers who work on libraries that are relied on by others to provide basic functionality (like GUIs) not breaking their APIs is what make applications run.

wolfgke 8y ago

TLDR: The developers of the GNU/Linux userland libraries do not care about binary compatibility.

josteink 8y ago
Binary compatibility is only a pressing issue if the majority of the software you run is closed source and not provided by your distro. Why waste time maintaining something which is not needed?
- wolfgke 8y ago
  > Binary compatibility is only a pressing issue if the majority of the software you run is closed source and not provided by your distro. Binary compatibility is a very pressing issue if there exist software that is closed source and you want to have more users than just some nerds.
  - josteink 8y ago
    I don’t care about closed source software. I don’t care about massive non-nerd adoption of Linux. None of those things benefit me or drives the things I care about. Either way: The enormous success of Linux despite these issues seems to be evidence contrary to your claim.

badsectoracula 8y ago

> "Broken" is a strong word. "Different" might be more fitting. No, "broken" is a perfectly fitting word, an application not running is broken, not different.

v_lisivka 8y ago
Linux is working perfectly on lot of servers, computers, smartphones. It holds steady third place in the world rating for desktops, first place for smartphones, dominant at server/embedded/supercomputer markets. If a developer released an app which cannot be running at these platforms under Linux, then app is broken, of course. Why you blame perfectly working OS for developer fault?
- badsectoracula 8y ago
  Because it is the OS that broke backwards compatibility and caused the application to stop working. That the kernel is used in "servers, computers, smartphones" and wherever else metric of popularity doesn't magically make applications run. Developers who work on libraries that are relied on by others to provide basic functionality (like GUIs) not breaking their APIs is what make applications run.