If you're just going to sit there doing nothing, at least do nothing correctly

Re:If you're just going to sit there doing nothing, at least... by pjmlp on Saturday February 17, 2024 @07:23AM (#39408809)

Now that you got there, which distribution released in 2023 allows me to run a GNU/Linux binary compiled in 2000, regardless of the distribution it was compiled on back in 2000?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:If you're just going to sit there doing nothing, at least... by heyoni on Saturday February 17, 2024 @07:44AM (#39408932)

What am I chatgpt? Just make your point and tell us which 2000 binaries don't run and we can argue about whether or not that counts as a mark against backwards compatibility.

Also, is this a trick question about binaries that weren't patched for y2k or something?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:If you're just going to sit there doing nothing, at least... by hnfong on Saturday February 17, 2024 @11:06AM (#39410667)

If a binary from 2000 doesn't run, it's because of glibc ABI changes. I still have faint memories of glibc crap happening in the early 2000s. But if the binary from 2000 is statically linked, then the Linux kernel probably runs it fine today.

Which is weird considering the argument you had with others above about how "Linux (kernel) doesn't run software", was it a buildup to convince us that "GNU(glibc)/Linux" is really bad at running old binaries? Because your argument doesn't hold for the Linux kernel itself running statically linked binaries.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:If you're just going to sit there doing nothing, at least... by pjmlp on Saturday February 17, 2024 @04:09PM (#39413582)

Only if those binaries were designed to be called from the Linux kernel directly, using only syscalls.

Last time I checked, hardly anyone uses their computer as an embedded board.

[ Parent | on HN ]