-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On May 3, 2004 12:36 pm, Willibald Krenn wrote:
Thorsten Kukuk schrieb:
I still can use Applixware from good old libc.so.5 days (I think this application is about 5-6 years old). It works. Nothing more. The programmers made a good job and wrote an application without using internal interfaces or something else.
I guess the internal interfaces (?errno issue?) were used by the wine module Borland used to port the IDE to Linux. BTW: If someone from outside can use my _internal_ interfaces, then these interfaces aren't really internal, are they? Furthermore it's
If they're marked as internal in the documentation, the authors really meant that it's not a good idea to use them, but someone might still have a good use for them, so if someone does, they should know what they're doing. Certainly not a good thing to do for a closed-source product. On a side note, using wine to port apps of this size is kind of cheating to me :)
difficult to compare a RAD-IDE that has integrated debugger support with some 'normal' userland application..
If your Windows application uses internal interfaces or is build in a wrong way, it will fail with the next Windows version, too. The same is true for Linux. There is no difference.
On Linux you still have to know how you have to set up your work-arounds (environment vars, all sorts of 'deprecated' packages,..) - mostly due to the lack of standards.
You simply can not compare GNU/Linux and Windows in terms of respecting backward compatibility (and end-user friendliness). My Windows XP still runs a (closed source) DirectX game (chopper sim; 3D) from 1996 today! Try that on GNU/Linux - if you manage to find
You're also forgetting that GNU/Linux isn't that old - DOS has been around for longer and had time to establish itself. Sure, you can do things like static-linking about as much as you can(which is what a lot of windows software tends to be), but I'm sure you realize it has lots of downsides, too. Having most of the software open-source on our systems, there is quite an advantage of improving things and bugfixing without thinking too much about backwards compatibility - I think that's a fairly positive thing. Sure, it would be good to have it a level similar to winxp(from end-user point of view) - but that might come at price which I wouldn't want to pay, either. Besides, winxp isn't that great at it - I have a few win95 apps(mostly quite simple, one of them some sort of medical database, others also had a little specific uses) one of which did refuse to run in winxp(no matter what options), and the other had severe problems with the localized interface(both of them work fine in wine). Don't get me wrong, I'm not a winxp user :) And I don't dualboot anymore :) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAlpvBrXAtDXHWsekRAi/fAJ9ISl8cz1Hx1FizuOue7DgoeppT7ACfU6qM R7AGcM13VUUuzz+GkmWR78o= =uovB -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----