Relevant to SteamOS and open-platform gaming, it proposes a different paradigm for Linux-based distributions and operating systems, one that could address compatibility issues on alternative platforms that Windows users often take for granted.

EDIT: added a QnA section that tries to answer some of the questions posed here.

  • CallMeAl (like Alan)@piefed.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    As a lot of you already know, backward compatibility has never really been the strong suit of Linux or the BSDs.

    From the first sentence I have the strong impression the author is deeply confused and mistaken.

    • parallelminds@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I am not talking about the kernel. and the userspace of either platform is nowhere near as strong as it is on Windows.

        • parallelminds@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          This isn’t a forum for throwing quick witted gotchas. I’m trying to have a constructive discussion. at any case, it’s because I’m working to build an open platform with proper backward compatibility, so please engage seriously rather than trolling.

          • Bo7a@piefed.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            This also isn’t a forum for driving engagement to your fucking Reddit post.

  • thenextguy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    At least skip the Reddit link and post the source…

    https://parallel-minds0.github.io/An-Open-Letter-on-Linux-Compatibility/

    From a quick skim, I think the author doesn’t really know that much about how Linux and its various components and libraries actually work. Though it seems they are loosely proposing somebody new compatibility layer?

    And what is this supposed NT compatibility promise?

    The Linux kernel has maintained strict backwards compatibility at the user space level for ages.

    Individual libraries are versioned and can be kept around for as long as anyone likes.

    Package management and dependencies might be a bigger problem, but I would guess a manageable one?

    • parallelminds@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Why has there been recent issues with compatibility with the userspace then? from systemd to even not so distant news of glibc failing? The article goes a bit more in depth about what needs to be done, it describes a different packaging and distribution model as well that is simpler and more convenient in design.

    • parallelminds@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Your comment reduces my article to vague claims of ignorance and a basic mention of something you admittedly only glanced on. The article is much richer in depth than your comment suggests, I encourage people here to actually read it so we can have a proper discussion. I promise you that it won’t disappoint even if you don’t agree fully with it.

      • thenextguy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        I did read it. It’s not that long.

        I still don’t know what problem you are trying to resolve that doesn’t already have one or more solutions.

        You listed one issue, specific to gaming and cheating, that was simple human error and miscommunication that I don’t believe would be solved by what you are proposing.

        What other examples do you have? You seem to be starting with an assumption that everyone knows and agrees what the problem is without truly stating it.

        The Linux kernel, and most userspace libraries already have a contract to maintain backwards compatibility. Some developers may choose to ignore this or make mistakes and break this contract. Again I do not believe that adding some new compatibility layer will fix this.

        I’m sorry, but your article seems very hand wavy to me and doesn’t have enough detail on how it would work. What you are proposing seems huge. I can’t imagine enough people buying in to the idea to get it off the ground.

        • parallelminds@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          There are many problems with existing solutions, I’ve already had a long discussion on this on the subreddit. and I went in more detail in the conversation. check it out if you’re interested.

          • thenextguy@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            Then why did you post here if you’re not willing to discuss it here? It seems you just want everyone to agree with you. Sorry to disappoint.

            • parallelminds@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying you’re jumping to conclusions too quickly.

              I had a long discussion about this yesterday, so I didn’t want to repeat the same arguments all over again. At this point, it feels like I’m encountering the same arguments across different platforms.

              Maybe I should add a Q&A section to the article to clarify my points. Many people have raised interesting perspectives, not because I haven’t considered them, but because I have a particular viewpoint that I didn’t fully explain in the article itself.

              EDIT: at any case, to engage with your points: To you, these problems are solved, or nonexistent because you are comfortable using Linux in this specific way. but it is not ready as it is for the wider world outside of the people who are comfortable with the existing levels of compatibility it offers, which isn’t much compared to Windows. Also, I am not just offering better compatibility, but a better packaging and distribution model as well. and an over all more polished experience, though the latter wasn’t explicitly mentioned in the article, it is implicit.

              • ms.lane@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                At this point, it feels like I’m encountering the same arguments across different platforms.

                If many people from different places are giving you similar feedback, maybe you need to reflect on that feedback, rather than just posting it somewhere else hoping for a different answer.

                • parallelminds@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  13 days ago

                  You are an idiot. I’ve met some people who have been more than interested to discuss this thing and actually go forward with it. You don’t even understand what you’re reading or what this content is about. Because if you did, and if you did have actual opinions of your own you would post them here rather than signal your conformist mindset.

                  Do you realize how embarrassing you sound?