4 ms·

Is Linux unreasonable? The kernel has been backwards-compatible to user-land from the start. Or TeX, C, RS232?

• rot13xor 5y ago
  Same with x86. Even modern x86 CPUs boots in real mode so you can run a baremetal 8086 binary from the 1980s.
• zmmmmm 5y ago
  > The kernel has been backwards-compatible to user-land from the start Maybe at the source level ... at the binary driver level there is no stability at all, and it's a huge reason why the driver scene for linux still languishes in so many areas. Now there are reasons linux has chosen this model but it nonetheless demonstrates this is not a "free" decision without any consequences.
  • jnxx 5y ago
    > at the binary driver level there is no stability at all You are evading the argument, what we were talking about was stability of APIs in respect to the userland code. Linux never promised binary compatibility at driver level. Also, Linux has far better stability in hardware support than competing systems. If a relative tells me they have a photographic slide scanner or printer that stopped to work with some Windows x.y release, chances are quite good that it is continued to be supported by Linux.
• simonw 5y ago
  I didn't say it made the projects themselves unreasonable, I said that projecting those expectations on other projects is unreasonable. Those are all inspiring examples of projects that went truly above and beyond the norm and achieved great success as a result.
• lmm 5y ago
  I don't know about RS232, but Linux, TeX and C all ended up really inelegant and hard to work with. Maybe the backward compatibility is worth it in your case; personally I'm far happier using something that has been ruthlessly refactored to keep everything clean even if it means I have to update things on my side sometimes.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]