3 ms·

Also, there is an lively discussion on lwn: http://lwn.net/Articles/489689/ http://lwn.net/Articles/489689/ I tend to agree that linux desktop needs a stable

by bokchoi 15y ago

Also, there is an lively discussion on lwn: http://lwn.net/Articles/489689/ http://lwn.net/Articles/489689/ I tend to agree that linux desktop needs a stable ABI that ISVs can target.

tsewlliw 15y ago
Static linking is your friend. I happily run Perforce 2002.1 clients meant for Linux 2.4 on x86 on my Kernel 3.2 amd64 machine when testing back-compat. I'd say ten years is pretty stable - just don't do random crap in your app :)
angersock 15y ago
A fun read, and most of the problem seems to be repesented in this subthread ( http://lwn.net/Articles/489747/ http://lwn.net/Articles/489747/ ). A sample: "To what end? If you want the experience of running Windows or MacOS, and you're happy with proprietary software, then there a a couple of perfectly decent ways of getting those experiences. I run Linux because of the things it does differently - we don't need another Mac OS, we have one already." This is why everyone laughs at Linux folks when they complain/hope-for Linux On The Desktop (For Real This Time!). :)
- bct 15y ago
  Linux users are not a monolithic group that all simultaneously want mainstream success and exclusivity. There's plenty of room for both approaches.
  - angersock 15y ago
    Room, yes--patronage, no. The vast majority of users don't care about the sort of crap even really friendly distros (#!, Mint, Ubuntu) make you wade through. They literally want--and have come to expect--"push button, receive app." I'd suggest that the Linux community either decide that they need to create a compelling, modern UX (and in so doing acknowledge that things like package management and security are really bikesheds as far as users are concerned), or they need to decide that they are an elite operating system and should optimize for retaining and helping their users (and in so doing stop with stupid UI decisions that break conventions and alienate existing users). I don't care whether Linux goes mainstream or totally elitist, but the current compromise is this awkward kid at a party who is no fun to be around for the popular kids and who is hated by his old D&D buddies for snubbing them.
    - bct 15y ago
      Your expectations are odd. Large, loosely-knit communities don't (and can't) decide things in the way that you're suggesting. Regardless of what "should" happen, we're just going to continue muddling around. It's worked out OK so far.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]

by bokchoi 15y ago

Also, there is an lively discussion on lwn: http://lwn.net/Articles/489689/ http://lwn.net/Articles/489689/ I tend to agree that linux desktop needs a stable ABI that ISVs can target.

tsewlliw 15y ago

Static linking is your friend. I happily run Perforce 2002.1 clients meant for Linux 2.4 on x86 on my Kernel 3.2 amd64 machine when testing back-compat. I'd say ten years is pretty stable - just don't do random crap in your app :)

angersock 15y ago

A fun read, and most of the problem seems to be repesented in this subthread ( http://lwn.net/Articles/489747/ http://lwn.net/Articles/489747/ ). A sample: "To what end? If you want the experience of running Windows or MacOS, and you're happy with proprietary software, then there a a couple of perfectly decent ways of getting those experiences. I run Linux because of the things it does differently - we don't need another Mac OS, we have one already." This is why everyone laughs at Linux folks when they complain/hope-for Linux On The Desktop (For Real This Time!). :)

bct 15y ago
Linux users are not a monolithic group that all simultaneously want mainstream success and exclusivity. There's plenty of room for both approaches.
- angersock 15y ago
  Room, yes--patronage, no. The vast majority of users don't care about the sort of crap even really friendly distros (#!, Mint, Ubuntu) make you wade through. They literally want--and have come to expect--"push button, receive app." I'd suggest that the Linux community either decide that they need to create a compelling, modern UX (and in so doing acknowledge that things like package management and security are really bikesheds as far as users are concerned), or they need to decide that they are an elite operating system and should optimize for retaining and helping their users (and in so doing stop with stupid UI decisions that break conventions and alienate existing users). I don't care whether Linux goes mainstream or totally elitist, but the current compromise is this awkward kid at a party who is no fun to be around for the popular kids and who is hated by his old D&D buddies for snubbing them.
  - bct 15y ago
    Your expectations are odd. Large, loosely-knit communities don't (and can't) decide things in the way that you're suggesting. Regardless of what "should" happen, we're just going to continue muddling around. It's worked out OK so far.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]