Linked by Stefan Michalowski, M. Sc. on Thu 19th Aug 2004 08:27 UTC
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



The way I see it, most Open Source applications *ignore* the problem. They don't care about backwards compatability; it's not like they try to maintain it.
Breaking compatability so damn often as they do, should be punished 
As a user, I get pretty pissed off when binary compatability breaks when it really shouldn't. Libraries that are depended upon by closed source applications should NOT break compatibility. With GPL'ed libraries, those that require applications to be GPL as well, breaking compatability is less of an issue, since it's possible to fix the application.
GCC is a very good example of how too much freedom can really suck