4 ms·

Windows really is the exception and not the rule, though. In fact in the free and open world of Linux, backwards compatibility is even worse… a binary compiled

Windows really is the exception and not the rule, though. In fact in the free and open world of Linux, backwards compatibility is even worse… a binary compiled a year ago has a good chance of no longer working. Stuff like Flatpak is improving that situation a bit, but it’s still nowhere as backwards compatible as Windows.

wila 5y ago
> In fact in the free and open world of Linux, backwards compatibility is even worse… I have linux binaries from 2001 that still work fine on recent Linux kernels.
- berkut 5y ago
  If they're CLI C ones, or statically link all deps: sure.... If they link against libstdc++, Qt or Python, good luck...
  - seba_dos1 5y ago
    Games usually bundle or statically link their dependencies (just like most software on Windows).
  - kitsunesoba 5y ago
    Those three you listed have definitely been the most problematic by far when trying to run things on Linux.
noobermin 5y ago
An amazing sentiment calling the operating system used the most across the entire world an exception rather than it being a standard. And I don't know how you envoke the problem (yes problem) of broken dependencies on linux and think it adds to your argument on why this is a good move by Apple.
- kitsunesoba 5y ago
  Windows may be the most commonly used OS, but nevertheless it is just one OS among many and the others have worse backwards compatibility… most considerably so.
edflsafoiewq 5y ago
Linux has excellent backwards compatibility if you bundle your dependencies the same way you do on Windows. Most low-level interfaces - the kernel, libc, X, GL - pay close attention to backwards compatibility.
nezirus 5y ago
It is actually the oposite on Linux. You compile on older distro (e.g. CentOS 6), and it will work on later versions, (CentOS 7). https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2019/08/01/how-the-gnu-c-library-handles-backward-compatibility https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2019/08/01/how-the-gnu-c-...

wila 5y ago

> In fact in the free and open world of Linux, backwards compatibility is even worse… I have linux binaries from 2001 that still work fine on recent Linux kernels.

berkut 5y ago
If they're CLI C ones, or statically link all deps: sure.... If they link against libstdc++, Qt or Python, good luck...
- seba_dos1 5y ago
  Games usually bundle or statically link their dependencies (just like most software on Windows).
- kitsunesoba 5y ago
  Those three you listed have definitely been the most problematic by far when trying to run things on Linux.

noobermin 5y ago

An amazing sentiment calling the operating system used the most across the entire world an exception rather than it being a standard. And I don't know how you envoke the problem (yes problem) of broken dependencies on linux and think it adds to your argument on why this is a good move by Apple.

kitsunesoba 5y ago
Windows may be the most commonly used OS, but nevertheless it is just one OS among many and the others have worse backwards compatibility… most considerably so.

edflsafoiewq 5y ago

Linux has excellent backwards compatibility if you bundle your dependencies the same way you do on Windows. Most low-level interfaces - the kernel, libc, X, GL - pay close attention to backwards compatibility.

nezirus 5y ago

It is actually the oposite on Linux. You compile on older distro (e.g. CentOS 6), and it will work on later versions, (CentOS 7). https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2019/08/01/how-the-gnu-c-library-handles-backward-compatibility https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2019/08/01/how-the-gnu-c-...