Hacker News Reader

Comment by isopede | Hacker News Reader

Is it though? I can run Windows programs from 20 years ago on my Windows machine just fine.

Issues with Linux binary distribution meanwhile are ubiquitous, with glibc probably being the single biggest offender. What's worse is that you can't even really statically link it without herculean effort. I've spent an inordinate amount of my life trying to wrangle third-party binaries on Linux libraries and it's just a sorry state of affairs.

Try taking a binary package from a vendor from even just 5 years ago and there's a non-zero chance it won't run on your modern distro.

View on HN

You are talking about backward compatibility, the parent thread is about forward compatibility. You won't have much luck running a modern executable on XP unless the vendor went out of their way to make that happen.

> What's worse is that you can't even really statically link it without herculean effort.

The program we are discussing happens to be written in Go so it's trivial to build a statically linked executable.

Are you sure you want glibc statically linked into your go executable ?

glibc won't be used at all.

With Go on Linux libc is only needed when the libc DNS resolver is used (instead of Go's built-in one) or if C libraries are used. superfile doesn't need either of these so it's very simple to build it as a pure Go executable which will be statically linked and contain no C code at all.

Op's example however did use glibc though.

It's an interesting comparison. I agree that five years is well within the expected period of viability of an operating system. Some points to consider:

- any given release of a Linux distro will probably work on hardware released five years earlier -- one factor that reduces the cost of upgrading the OS (there are many more obvious factors)

- Microsoft is highly motivated to get customers to upgrade to the new Windows at the time. The legacy support is well-known as a "bone" (or: "a factor that reduces the cost of upgrading the OS")

- binary backwards/forwards compatibility is less of an issue in an environment that doesn't treat source code as a secret

- why run old versions of software? In other words: xterm is older than Windows and also as new as Windows

Also, I've always found it amusing that I have much less trouble running old windows software on a Linux (wine) than on new versions of windows.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com