You don't understand the definition of backward compatibility. There are examples of binaries written against a UNIX kernel from 30 years ago that run just fin

You don't understand the definition of backward compatibility. There are examples of binaries written against a UNIX kernel from 30 years ago that run just fine. If you start adding dependencies on libraries you are choosing to have one of these problems: - use dynamic libraries and refuse to cooperate with maintainers and things will break, rightfully so - use dynamic libraries and the OS keep them around forever and it will become a security dumpster fire over time (and also will never scale down to embedded systems and phones) - use dynamic libraries and ship them in a tarball and it will become a security dumpster fire over time - use static libraries and it will become a security dumpster fire over time, plus it's even more difficult to tell what libraries are used - use dynamic libraries and ship them with docker or appimage or similar and it will become a security dumpster fire over time, plus you have unnecessary complexity - use dynamic libraries and package your stuff properly. Target LTS releases. Most good distributions will guarantee 5 years of stability of all the dependencies without version changes. Plus you get free backported security fixes and free testing. > And it's only Linux that has that problem in that dimension Not at all. > AppImage is great and solves that problem. It should be used more. Not at all.