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.

Yeah, why does an actual bus know or care about Kates?

You picked a particularly rare example. Meaning it was a combination of unexpected use case and 10+ years of deprecation happening to coincide at the wrong time and place.

Even if you had your supposed compatibility layer in place human error or misunderstanding is still going to cause issues like this from time to time.

The DT_HASH issue was specifically NOT an api breakage. It was some apps consuming some internals without keeping track of changes. Yes, they technically broke backwards compatibility. But those apps weren’t supposed to be using that field for a long time.

I think you’ve gotten a really bad read of my article. We know the typical Linux stack has problems with libraries failing to maintain backward compatibility

We do? I certainly don’t. Which libraries? That’s likely not a generic Linux issue. That’s more probably a specific issue with those specific libraries or distros.

I think you need to be much more specific if you think anything is going to come from this. I have no idea what recent issues you are referring to.

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?

deleted by creator

https://askubuntu.com/questions/18418/how-can-i-set-which-application-is-launched-by-xdg-open

You might want to configure xdg to open what you want instead.

Is god in the picture? Behind the tree perhaps?

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

To Monty!

Or an older sibling who had this test last year.

Using Claude…

Unless other distros switch away from coreutils, it will remain the standard. It seems a lot of work for little/no upside.

So, they will have to continue to support feature for feature, bug for bug with coreutils and others forever? What’s the endgame here?

If /home and /var are on disk and not USB then it might be ok. The rest of the os is typically only written when installing or configuring things.

Try it, might be fun.

Try changing your io scheduler.

Swappiness set to over 9000!

It’s an hp. I just assume it does.