4 ms·

Windows has also maintained backwards compatibility to a ridiculous extent, and there have been a bunch of "year of the Windows desktop", so I don't think it is

Windows has also maintained backwards compatibility to a ridiculous extent, and there have been a bunch of "year of the Windows desktop", so I don't think it is detrimental that Linux does the same.

IshKebab 3y ago
The issue is not about maintaining reasonable backwards compatibility. It's about refusing to fix things and using ridiculous backwards compatibility as an excuse. 1. Even Windows doesn't maintain full backwards compatibility all the way to the 90s, which is what you are advocating. 2. You could even fix this in a backwards compatible way if you wanted!
- hnlmorg 3y ago
  > 1. Even Windows doesn't maintain full backwards compatibility all the way to the 90s, which is what you are advocating. Oh yes it does! Win32 APIs have been around since the Win95 / NT4 days. And those APIs were themselves based on APIs from Windows 1.0. Then there's those magic files like `CON` that are a remnant of DOS (in fact its even older than that because it comes from CP/M). https://superuser.com/questions/86999/why-cant-i-name-a-folder-or-file-con-in-windows https://superuser.com/questions/86999/why-cant-i-name-a-fold... Also I never said anything about "full backwards compatibility". I just think this specific compatibility is worth preserving because your justifications are weak (by your own admission, you're only arguing about it because you enjoy arguing with people on the internet). > 2. You could even fix this in a backwards compatible way if you wanted! It has been. You objected to those backwards compatible fixes. I've also suggested a way of patching `reset` without relying on buggy usages of `$TERM`. That also apparently isn't good enough for you.
  - IshKebab 3y ago
    > you're only arguing about it because you enjoy arguing with people on the internet Not at all. Firstly I clearly stated a second reason so that isn't the only reason. And secondly, that's orthogonal to whether or not I'm right. If I didn't enjoy debating I wouldn't bother but I would still know that maintaining this delay is idiotic. > It has been. You objected to those backwards compatible fixes. It has not. If I install a default Linux distro, the default configuration is to insert stupid delays everywhere. I have to go out of my way to remove them. That. Is. Dumb.

Windows has also maintained backwards compatibility to a ridiculous extent, and there have been a bunch of "year of the Windows desktop", so I don't think it is detrimental that Linux does the same.

IshKebab 3y ago

The issue is not about maintaining reasonable backwards compatibility. It's about refusing to fix things and using ridiculous backwards compatibility as an excuse. 1. Even Windows doesn't maintain full backwards compatibility all the way to the 90s, which is what you are advocating. 2. You could even fix this in a backwards compatible way if you wanted!

hnlmorg 3y ago
> 1. Even Windows doesn't maintain full backwards compatibility all the way to the 90s, which is what you are advocating. Oh yes it does! Win32 APIs have been around since the Win95 / NT4 days. And those APIs were themselves based on APIs from Windows 1.0. Then there's those magic files like `CON` that are a remnant of DOS (in fact its even older than that because it comes from CP/M). https://superuser.com/questions/86999/why-cant-i-name-a-folder-or-file-con-in-windows https://superuser.com/questions/86999/why-cant-i-name-a-fold... Also I never said anything about "full backwards compatibility". I just think this specific compatibility is worth preserving because your justifications are weak (by your own admission, you're only arguing about it because you enjoy arguing with people on the internet). > 2. You could even fix this in a backwards compatible way if you wanted! It has been. You objected to those backwards compatible fixes. I've also suggested a way of patching `reset` without relying on buggy usages of `$TERM`. That also apparently isn't good enough for you.
- IshKebab 3y ago
  > you're only arguing about it because you enjoy arguing with people on the internet Not at all. Firstly I clearly stated a second reason so that isn't the only reason. And secondly, that's orthogonal to whether or not I'm right. If I didn't enjoy debating I wouldn't bother but I would still know that maintaining this delay is idiotic. > It has been. You objected to those backwards compatible fixes. It has not. If I install a default Linux distro, the default configuration is to insert stupid delays everywhere. I have to go out of my way to remove them. That. Is. Dumb.