Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 3rd Aug 2007 23:09 UTC
SkyOS SkyOS beta 6762 has been released. "SkyOS Beta 6762 is now available to download directly from the Beta Center. This build features the new Viewer, a huge performance increase, 36 additional API Classes, updated libraries, a new font alpha blending method, 280+ fixed bugs including critical boot bug fixes."
Thread beginning with comment 261181
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: FAQ
by edwdig on Mon 6th Aug 2007 15:31 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: FAQ"
edwdig
Member since:
2005-08-22

The "ever changing" APIs is a myth. Most even stone age programs still compile on new systems without any patch needed.

Not true at all. You're only able to compile older apps if you load your system up with ancient versions of libraries. That's not API compatibility, that's just the ability for different APIs to coexist. Very big difference.

Let's also not forget the horrible disregard for binary compatibility on Linux. GCC alone breaks all binary compatibility every few releases.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: FAQ
by Ford Prefect on Mon 6th Aug 2007 19:43 in reply to "RE[5]: FAQ"
Ford Prefect Member since:
2006-01-16

Your posting sounds ignorant to me. I got not the same impression than you, but still I know what I talk about, too. And to me it seems that most open source APIs stay compatible for a long time. Even if there occur changes, they are mostly minor ones and can easily patched.

Your post about binary compatibility is senseless. The disregard of it is anything else than "horrible". It doesn't matter. Next, gcc stays binary compatible a long, long, long time. It's only g++ that broke often recently.

On Windows I want binary compatibility, because I would need it! On a open source operating system it's nothing more than a hindrance to evolution of the software.

But now to go one step further: API/ABI compatibility on Windows as the outstanding proprietary platform to compare with, is horrible too -- talking about libraries! Most programs install their own version of the needed libs just exactly for this reason. And the mess goes so far that Windows has extra mechanisms builtin to restore overwritten librarys automatically!

Still, if some error is detected in a rather old lib from MS, like the wmf (?) image exploit last year, people start to find this lib is shipped with dozens of applications they would never dream of. This wouldn't happen on a open source system, apart from your "API incompatibility" most programs manage to use the system-wide libs instead of static linkage etc.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: FAQ
by edwdig on Mon 6th Aug 2007 20:43 in reply to "RE[6]: FAQ"
edwdig Member since:
2005-08-22

Your post about binary compatibility is senseless. The disregard of it is anything else than "horrible". It doesn't matter. Next, gcc stays binary compatible a long, long, long time. It's only g++ that broke often recently.

I meant GCC in the GNU Compiler Collection sense, not in the C compiler sense. G++ breaks compatibility frequently. Once you get outside of x86, there tend to be a few platforms breaking binary compatibility with every release.

On Windows I want binary compatibility, because I would need it! On a open source operating system it's nothing more than a hindrance to evolution of the software.

I don't care about evolution of software. I want a stable platform to work on. It's not worth breaking things for every minor improvement.

Binary compatibility matters for all users. Source compatibility only matters for developers, who are vastly outnumbered by normal users. And it only matters as much as it does because a Linux system is hundreds of libraries with little to no coordination between the developers.

But now to go one step further: API/ABI compatibility on Windows as the outstanding proprietary platform to compare with, is horrible too -- talking about libraries! Most programs install their own version of the needed libs just exactly for this reason. And the mess goes so far that Windows has extra mechanisms builtin to restore overwritten librarys automatically!

Microsoft very stupidly put little in the way of version control into DLLs. They improved it in later years. The problems you're talking about are incompetent developers. They're not flaws in the system.

This wouldn't happen on a open source system, apart from your "API incompatibility" most programs manage to use the system-wide libs instead of static linkage etc.

You should pay more attention. It's really common for zlib, libpng, libssl, and a few other common libraries to be statically linked. wxWidgets is another common one to be statically linked - largely because they tend to make API changes even in point releases. It's more license issues than anything else that prevents static linking being more common.

Reply Parent Score: 1