2 ms·
> More software should be like that, but never will, because it isn't profitable to have users using the same version for many years. You can get some of it ba
by selfhoster11 4y ago
> More software should be like that, but never will, because it isn't profitable to have users using the same version for many years.
You can get some of it back with FOSS applications, even if the quality normally isn't the same as with old freeware/proprietary applications. At least with a FOSS application you get to keep it forever, unlike SaaS which evaporates into thin air the moment the parent company decides to pull the plug.
- badsectoracula 4y agoYou get to keep it, but if the software itself depends on a foundation made of sand, you can still be out of luck - especially for desktop applications that tend to rely on all sorts of libraries that just can't keep themselves from breaking their APIs and ABIs every few years (and those libraries have their own dependencies, etc). Of course if time is of no essence you can spend it keeping the software up to date, but being able to waste that time doesn't really excuse the underlying foundations forcing application developers to waste their time.
- selfhoster11 4y agoYou can still wrap it in a Docker container or a VM, statically compile it, or even use full system emulation if you eventually switch architectures. Or even pay someone to make the code run on a newer environment, if the application is worth it to you.