4 ms·
> I'm not sure about MacOS since I don't use it much, but most Linux distros do not forcibly apply upgrades like Windows does; Eh, not very accurate in my opin
by AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
> I'm not sure about MacOS since I don't use it much, but most Linux distros do not forcibly apply upgrades like Windows does;
Eh, not very accurate in my opinion. If you want to use the latest software you are very much forced to upgrade Linux because they have no concept of separating the platform from the applications that run on it. Either everything is bleeding edge or nothing is. Or you compile things from source like it is 1979.
There are Windows programs released today that will run just fine on Windows 7. How many Linux programs released today will run on Karmic Koala without recompilation?
- forgotmypw17 5y agoI just looked up what Karmic Koala is, and it is Ubuntu 9.x. I have not tried to use that recently, but I am quite happy running 14.x today, and it runs everything I need. I use IntelliJ 13.x for my Git stuff, Geany for most of my text editing, a dozen different browsers at whatever versions they are for my Web things, and whatever versions of mpv, mc, LibreOffice, etc. it came with for what those programs do. With only 1GB of RAM it's not always as snappy as I'd like, but I use the periods of swapping to meditate. I don't have to use programs released today, only ones which I need today.
- saghm 5y agoMy point is that there's a difference between "you need to update to use certain things" and "your computer literally is forcibly updated even if you don't want it to or aren't ready". I agree that Windows is probably ahead in terms of backwards compatibility, but the first few comments in the thread were talking about machines getting updated without them applying the updates, which is not a thing I'm aware of happening on most Linux distros.
- forgotmypw17 5y agoI'm not sure who you mean by "they", but there's a lot of difference between distros, and many different ways to put the pieces together (or leave them out) Compiling from source is the most reliable way to run the latest and greatest version of a particular application that I've found to date, leaving out all the middlemen like package mantainers, whose competence I may or may not trust. And generally speaking, I'd trust a several-decades-old technique much more than something just released. As far as Windows software goes, I've found Wine to be a much more reliable platform for old Windows applications than Windows 7 or 10, although there's nothing better than emulated Windows 9x for running programs of that era. (I make "any browser" websites, so running 1995+ software is something I do on the regular.)
- jart 5y agoKarmic Koala is within the support vector of Actually Portable Executable. Since if you can get it to run on that, it'll most likely run on all the other distros too. Plus these binaries run on Windows 7, Mac, and BSDs too. They even run without an operating system. No need for recompilation. No virtual machine required. They aren't bloated either since the binary footprint starts at 12kb. See https://justine.lol/ape.html https://justine.lol/ape.html and https://github.com/jart/cosmopolitan https://github.com/jart/cosmopolitan Best part is you can still use the compiler that comes with your Linux. All it does is reconfigures the compiler so that, rather than producing a binary that can only run on one version of one distro of one operating system, your program magically becomes capable of running on all of them.