3 ms·
GNU/Linux + the linux kernel. Somehow, it feels like you don't actually care about the point I was making as much as putting me down. I misspoke...barely, yet
by heyoni 3y ago
GNU/Linux + the linux kernel.
Somehow, it feels like you don't actually care about the point I was making as much as putting me down. I misspoke...barely, yet you're so fixated on pointing it out in the most unhelpful manner. You keep replying so why not try using more than one sentence next time?
- pjmlp 3y agoNow that you got there, which distribution released in 2023 allows me to run a GNU/Linux binary compiled in 2000, regardless of the distribution it was compiled on back in 2000?
- heyoni 3y agoWhat am I chatgpt? Just make your point and tell us which 2000 binaries don't run and we can argue about whether or not that counts as a mark against backwards compatibility. Also, is this a trick question about binaries that weren't patched for y2k or something?
- hnfong 3y agoIf a binary from 2000 doesn't run, it's because of glibc ABI changes. I still have faint memories of glibc crap happening in the early 2000s. But if the binary from 2000 is statically linked, then the Linux kernel probably runs it fine today. Which is weird considering the argument you had with others above about how "Linux (kernel) doesn't run software", was it a buildup to convince us that "GNU(glibc)/Linux" is really bad at running old binaries? Because your argument doesn't hold for the Linux kernel itself running statically linked binaries.
- pjmlp 3y agoOnly if those binaries were designed to be called from the Linux kernel directly, using only syscalls. Last time I checked, hardly anyone uses their computer as an embedded board.