Linked by Joost van der Sluis on Mon 10th Sep 2007 16:03 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 270641
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 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-06
Well, one fundamental problem with the Linux model of backward compatibility is that a binary compiled on an old system will work on a new system (if the programmers do their work properly), but a binary compiled on a new system does not run on an old system, due to symbol versioning.
This even happens if you don't use any new functionality, i.e. your source would perfectly compile on the system.
On the other hand, a Win32 program compiled on Windows Vista can run on Windows 95 or even Win3.1+Win32s if no new functionality is used.
The result is that Windows sometimes may get a message "sorry, you need a newer Windows", but Linux users are constantly upgrading their systems, or compiling packages by hand. This is also the reason why different binaries are needed per Linux distribution.