> 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

> 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.