Why did Windows 95 setup use three operating systems?

Something the Unix world can certainly learn from.

Sun used to take binary compatibility very seriously. Solaris 8 (and perhaps later releases) still had a compatibility layer for SunOS 4.x binaries. Solaris 11 can still run Solaris 2.6 binaries.

Linux is another matter entirely, if your binaries run at all from one distribution release to the next you're doing well.

Linux doesn't need binary compatibility as much as Windows, lot of source packages will compile right away with a vast array of different operating systems, typically excluding Windows but including Linux, and Linux is a few clicks away from running a fair number of MS-DOS and Windows applications, probably more than any single Windows version. Linux is king in compatibility.

That doesn't help you at all when you don't have the source and even then, compiler changes break source compatibility all the time.

Not just Linux, Mac too (people forget that they run a certified BSD kernel).

That's great when you're distributing your software for free and giving away the source code too, but it's a complete non-starter for commercial software.

Linux needs binary compatibility every bit as much as Windows. Even among people who are nerdy enough to run Linux on the desktop, very few are interested in compiling software to make it work.

This discussion feels a bit ancient to me.

Considering that desktop apps nowadays rely on web counterparts to be functional, most commerecial apps will stop running after some time, regardless of whether operating systems keep compatibility or not.

Even if you get the source youbend up with incompatibilities. From compiler to libraries. (Especially when reaching GUI/Gnome etc.)

Systems like Solaris are a lot more restricted what sets of libraries they provide (not "package up everything in the world" as some linux distros) but what they provide they keep working. (I haven't touched an Solaris system in a long time, but assume they didn't start massive "innovation" since then)

> Even among people who are nerdy enough to run Linux on the desktop, very few are interested in compiling software to make it work.

I would imagine most desktop linux users rely on maintainers to compile and distribute binaries for their particular flavor.

To be clear it is not binary formats themselves that change and cause incompatibility. ELF is ELF and hasn't appreciably changed. And it isn't even really kernel syscalls (though that isn't etched in stone, I don't get the impress it's changed that much). The problem is the libc or other shared libraries.

Seems like the way that this is "fixed" is by using containers. But it feels so...bloated.

Surely you've just outlined the very best reason to keep alive old applications that don't require a web counterpart!

Personally I want to keep GuitarPro 6 alive (There's no newer version for Linux because binary software distribution on Linux wasn't worth the trouble) and Quartus 13.1 (because I still write cores for a CycloneIII-based device and 13.1 is the last version to support that chip.)

The solution that Windows provides for the problem -- WinSxS -- is, ultimately, no less bloated.

>I would imagine most desktop linux users rely on maintainers to compile and distribute binaries for their particular flavor.

Which is less ideal than just having general binaries that work.

I maintain a package for which the upstream source hasn't changed in about 23 years. I still need to intervene once or twice a year because something else changes in the distro to cause that package to no longer build or run.

Same on Solaris. Maintaining userland compatibility was a large part of what Sun did.

As someone who still uses older software, thank you for your service! I still use Dia and xfig (because I’ve built up tons of “blocks” for them) and appreciate people donating their time to keep some ancient software going :)

Not every desktop app these days is an electron monstrosity. Especially not if it's a commercial app.

> Linux is another matter entirely, if your binaries run at all from one distribution release to the next you're doing well.

Linux binary compatibility is actually pretty good. As is glibc's an that of many other low level system libraries. The problem is only programs that depend on other random installed libraries that don't make any compatibility guarantees instead of shipping their own versions. That approach is also not going to lead to great future compatibility in Windows either. The only difference is that on Windows the base system labrary set is bigger while on Linux it is more limited to what you can't provide yourself.

IME Electron is more popular among commercial apps.

Macs uses FreeBSD as the foundation for their base system, but the kernel itself is a Mach derivative.

These days, Windows actually provides a single standard C runtime library in the OS with strong backwards compatibility guarantees, no WinSxS needed.