Linked by Stefan Michalowski, M. Sc. on Thu 19th Aug 2004 08:27 UTC
Editorial Lately posted on Slashdot, an article written by Joel Spolsky mentioned the trouble through which Microsoft went to make each version of Windows backwards compatible. In one case, for the game Simcity, they even changed the way memory handling was done when running that application. You can find additional stories of software tricks that recent versions of Windows have to perform in order to run these bug-dependant applications on the web. After reading the story, I discussed with a couple of friends how weird this was and how Free Software completely avoids this problem.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
@ Artem
by dpi on Thu 19th Aug 2004 21:19 UTC

Yeah, binary compatibility is certainly *possible* on Linux. But the fact that you could name only 3 (three) projects (let's not forget OOo!) shows that this is an exception, not a rule.

Holy dorkishness, argumenting in the 21th century:

A: Bla == true.
B: Bla != true, since X, Y, Z.
C: Because there is only X, Y, Z Bla == true.


No, it does not. In order to proof your point you'll have to state various examples where the opposite is the case as those 3. Then the athor again most likely states some in which it is true, so it wouldn't be constructive it would become some kind of rally of who is able to state more examples. A more fine, in-depth analysis as post or article would just be more constructive than the flamish path driven here.

That's extremely naive. There is absolutely zero incentive for a company that develops software to do as you suggest.

If the main (and in some extend only) purpose is to develop and sell software, i agree. However that isn't the case with Novell, IBM, BBC and many other companies. IBM doesn't say: We sell this GPL Linux kernel for $500 per computer, does it?