65 ms·
Right. And with open source software decades old programs can be compiled without issues too using last known good compilers, toolchains, libraries, preserving
by zzzcpan 7y ago
Right. And with open source software decades old programs can be compiled without issues too using last known good compilers, toolchains, libraries, preserving all the old bugs and vulnerabilities, just like on mainframes, but for free.
So everything he misses is there. It's just that running legacy code is too risky these days unless you are completely isolated from the internet. And modern infrastructure has a lot more essential complexity.
- butteroverflow 7y agoYeah. Here's a GCC developer experimenting with a 31-year old GCC version on a modern system (the first one with x86 support): >It is amazing how well things work – the modern assembler, linker, and debugger handles the code generated by GCC 1.27 without any problems. https://kristerw.blogspot.com/2019/01/building-gcc-127.html https://kristerw.blogspot.com/2019/01/building-gcc-127.html And the write-up he based his experiments upon: https://miyuki.github.io/2017/10/04/gcc-archaeology-1.html https://miyuki.github.io/2017/10/04/gcc-archaeology-1.html I'd say this kind of source-based backwards compatibility is superior to what's happening in Windows world -- not only it encourages you to keep the source code open, but you also don't have to keep as many hacks in the kernel/system libraries.