> Doesn't that mean Linux is entirely broken? Isn't the whole point of OSes that things that used to work, keep working?

"Broken" is a strong word. "Different" might be more fitting.

While I don't think anyone in the world of Linux and Linux-distros work with the explicit aim of breaking compatibility, you have to realize that Linux and most Linux-distros are built entirely around open-source software.

Most users install software via a distro-provided package-manager which fetches binaries from a repo. These binaries have been built from source, by the distro-vendor, specifically for that distro.

That means Linux compatibility traditionally has been more about source-level and compile-time compatibility more so than 100% uncompromised binary compatibility. If a change breaks binary compatibility, but the distro/system as a whole still builds fine, that's still compatible in most day-to-day scenarios of a common Linux end-user.

And unconstrained by having to maintain strict binary compatibility, it also allows developers to clean up historical garbage and technical debt they otherwise couldn't.

This approach obviously has both drawbacks and advantages, but calling it "broken" seems unfair, overly opinionated and really just wrong.