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.
re: OoSync's LSB idea
by Dasher42 on Thu 19th Aug 2004 22:58 UTC

Isn't it true that these binaries can target a more specific version of an .so? You could keep them around. A good binary installer should be able to determine what libraries are needed, and the script to run the application could set the LD_LIBRARY_PATH variable to include the application's own folder, i.e. /opt/application/lib, to work.

This, of course, means bloat. But hey, there's a segment of the crowd here that wants binary compatibility.

Me, I think the way alternative architectures like AMD64 can have an entire suite of software custom-compiled as they can with Linux is awesome. To hell with binary compatibility. Just make sure we have hardware and data compatibility. Perhaps the fact that I've been running Gentoo for the past year and a half colors my perspective...

Open source portability and fixability, binary compatibility, speed - pick any two.