4 ms·

You can run binaries from decades ago on Linux too. This is about a DOS binary. Well, a command line program that just uses system calls is fine too.

worewood 3y ago
Only if it is statically linked with everything it needs. Otherwise good luck resolving dependencies.
- eternityforest 3y ago
  Even then it might not work because it could rely on a DBus daemon being there. Even a brand new binary might fail because it needs some external program they forgot to add to the dependencies list in the package, so you have to sift through to find the not at all obvious package that provides it. Or something was compiled without some option for unknown reasons so you're just SOL unless you want to compile stuff yourself.
  - memefrog 3y ago
    How is that any different from any other program on any system failing because of a daemon not running? Inter-process communication exists on every operating system. IPC means your program's behaviour can be different depending on what other processes are running. This is not specific to Linux. Your other point is equally as inane. Anything might fail because it requires some external program, or external data files, or any other external resource. A program might fail because it requires a particular hardware device to be plugged into your computer. None of that has anything to do with the operating system. >Or something was compiled without some option for unknown reasons so you're just SOL unless you want to compile stuff yourself. Oh no! The terribly, impossibly difficult task of running a program! How could you ever subject me to such a fate as having to compile stuff myself. You cruel beast!
    - eternityforest 3y ago
      Compiling stuff yourself is generally much harder than one might want it to be be. The instructions might or might not actually work unless you're on a source based distro. It also might take hours. Or days, but the stuff that's big enough to take days generally works out of the box. Windows has IPC, but doesn't have as heavy of an influence from the Unix philosophy, and Android seems to have even less. More stuff is just built into the OS, it's always going to be there, probably for 20 years.
      - memefrog 3y ago
        Any software that has build instructions that don't work is probably written by morons. I wouldn't want to run it. I certainly have no interest in running software that takes days to compile. Overengineered crap.
59nadir 3y ago
Linux is absolutely terrible with this, it sits on the "extremely unlikely" end whereas Windows sits on the other in terms of backwards compatibility. It's not surprising either because the entire ecosystem runs on the myth that shared libraries are desirable when any serious look into them shows that almost no space is saved, almost none of them are actually shared by a meaningful amount of apps, almost no actual security issues are avoided by using them. Anyone who has ever been interested in having someone else be able to run their program has figured out a long time ago that you have to ship your dependencies for them to be able to do so.
- memefrog 3y ago
  I have never had any issue running old programs. Shared libraries have nothing to do with Linux. They are an entirely userspace concept.
  - 59nadir 3y ago
    That would be a great point were it not for the fact that virtually all Linux distros run everything on shared libraries. I like Linux but this is one aspect of it that has never done it any favors. It was probably a decent choice at one point but it has ceased being one. I reckon it has held back the Linux application ecosystem for over a decade for no reason at this point.
    - memefrog 3y ago
      There is nothing wrong with shared libraries. If you want to run an old program, you need to also run old libraries, and old network services it communicates with, and maybe old hardware too. Libraries are no different. In practice it just isn't an issue, because competent application developers don't tie themselves to particular versions of libraries, and competent library developers don't make gratuitous backwards-incompatible changes. Nobody is forcing you to depend on incompetently-written malware like GTK+.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]

worewood 3y ago

Only if it is statically linked with everything it needs. Otherwise good luck resolving dependencies.

eternityforest 3y ago
Even then it might not work because it could rely on a DBus daemon being there. Even a brand new binary might fail because it needs some external program they forgot to add to the dependencies list in the package, so you have to sift through to find the not at all obvious package that provides it. Or something was compiled without some option for unknown reasons so you're just SOL unless you want to compile stuff yourself.
- memefrog 3y ago
  How is that any different from any other program on any system failing because of a daemon not running? Inter-process communication exists on every operating system. IPC means your program's behaviour can be different depending on what other processes are running. This is not specific to Linux. Your other point is equally as inane. Anything might fail because it requires some external program, or external data files, or any other external resource. A program might fail because it requires a particular hardware device to be plugged into your computer. None of that has anything to do with the operating system. >Or something was compiled without some option for unknown reasons so you're just SOL unless you want to compile stuff yourself. Oh no! The terribly, impossibly difficult task of running a program! How could you ever subject me to such a fate as having to compile stuff myself. You cruel beast!
  - eternityforest 3y ago
    Compiling stuff yourself is generally much harder than one might want it to be be. The instructions might or might not actually work unless you're on a source based distro. It also might take hours. Or days, but the stuff that's big enough to take days generally works out of the box. Windows has IPC, but doesn't have as heavy of an influence from the Unix philosophy, and Android seems to have even less. More stuff is just built into the OS, it's always going to be there, probably for 20 years.
    - memefrog 3y ago
      Any software that has build instructions that don't work is probably written by morons. I wouldn't want to run it. I certainly have no interest in running software that takes days to compile. Overengineered crap.

59nadir 3y ago

Linux is absolutely terrible with this, it sits on the "extremely unlikely" end whereas Windows sits on the other in terms of backwards compatibility. It's not surprising either because the entire ecosystem runs on the myth that shared libraries are desirable when any serious look into them shows that almost no space is saved, almost none of them are actually shared by a meaningful amount of apps, almost no actual security issues are avoided by using them. Anyone who has ever been interested in having someone else be able to run their program has figured out a long time ago that you have to ship your dependencies for them to be able to do so.

memefrog 3y ago
I have never had any issue running old programs. Shared libraries have nothing to do with Linux. They are an entirely userspace concept.
- 59nadir 3y ago
  That would be a great point were it not for the fact that virtually all Linux distros run everything on shared libraries. I like Linux but this is one aspect of it that has never done it any favors. It was probably a decent choice at one point but it has ceased being one. I reckon it has held back the Linux application ecosystem for over a decade for no reason at this point.
  - memefrog 3y ago
    There is nothing wrong with shared libraries. If you want to run an old program, you need to also run old libraries, and old network services it communicates with, and maybe old hardware too. Libraries are no different. In practice it just isn't an issue, because competent application developers don't tie themselves to particular versions of libraries, and competent library developers don't make gratuitous backwards-incompatible changes. Nobody is forcing you to depend on incompetently-written malware like GTK+.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]