View Single Post
Old 08-19-2016, 09:54 AM   #13
KevinH
Sigil Developer
KevinH ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.KevinH ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.KevinH ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.KevinH ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.KevinH ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.KevinH ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.KevinH ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.KevinH ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.KevinH ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.KevinH ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.KevinH ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 8,892
Karma: 6120478
Join Date: Nov 2009
Device: many
FWIW, this is a real issue on Linux that no one seems to address. Breaking backwards binary compatibility (or even pseudo breakage by decree) just makes no sense. I can build binaries that work backwards to Mac OSX 10.9 easily or with some added work all the way back to Mac OSX 10.6, on the very latest version of Mac OSX 10.11 with no issues. On Windows, with some help, all the way back to Win Xp.

Why on earth should the same thing not be possible on Linux. Why should Linux users have to either upgrade their OS every year or two just to get access to new versions of programs or jump to rolling distributions that push the envelope and are not always stable?

This is what the the application package format debate/wars is about on Linux right now.

I would think using private distribution specific ppas is in fact a good way to deal with this issue until the application package format wars on Linux end (if they ever do!).

KevinH
KevinH is online now   Reply With Quote