Sujet : Re: Centos stream of batpiss
De : rotflol2 (at) *nospam* hotmail.com (Borax Man)
Groupes : comp.os.linux.miscDate : 03. Jun 2024, 05:25:50
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <slrnv5qdtu.cr9.rotflol2@geidiprime.bvh>
References : 1 2 3 4 5
User-Agent : slrn/1.0.3 (Linux)
On 2024-06-02, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <
ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 1 Jun 2024 12:44:38 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
>
I will say this is one thing that I do think Microsoft have done very
well, backwards binary compatibility.
>
Sure it is. Which is why “DLL Hell” never happens on Windows, does it?
>
Except that’s where the phrase was coined.
It's a simple matter of emprical evidence. Windows 98 when I last
used it supported newer software far more than the Linux Distros
released at the time. I could run early versions of Firefox on
Windows 98SE, as well as Windows 3.1 software from the early 90s.
I never said it wasn't without its problems, but show me a system
which had better backwards compatibility?
Centos stream of batpiss
Re: Centos stream of batpiss