Linux is terrible on this axis, way worse than Windows.
EDIT: and statically linking your app doesn't cut it.
First, it's barely possible to do that with "modern" glibc.
Second, glibc itself breaks old apps.
But then for some reason I started to keep in sync with my distro. The update is painless, reasonably quick, and safe. Usually I only have to fix the outdated python version of my virtualenvs, and to this day I never had to rollback. I have a laptop from 2009 that runs the latests distros without problems. But it cannot run W10 properly, let alone do any work.
My point is that Linux is beyond Windows in terms of "upgradeability". Giving the limited resources, why go after Microsoft level of backward compatibility, when any machine can run on the latest distro and libraries? On the other hand, why would anyone keep a XP system around if, acording to the video, a W10 would run their programs so easily? Something doesn't add up.
Most decades old software is still maintained, rebuild and packaged by every distribution. You can't easily run a 30 years old program, but you can run its latest version, for free.
Maybe GNU/Linux, but I can run binaries cross-compiled with GCC 10 on Arch Linux on some weird MIPS PoS terminal that's running Linux 2.6.30 without issues, as long as I don't use then non-existent syscalls, so I'm quite happy how Linux kernel handles backwards compatibility.
In that way MS do not have to care anymore for older software and security problems.
EDIT: Why the down-vote? A lighter OS would make a lot of sense.
musl works just fine for that