cvs commit: src/sys/compat/linux linux_socket.c

[Scott Long]

Paul Richards wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 10:44:09AM -0700, Scott Long wrote:
> 
>>Paul Richards wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 06:06:16PM +0100, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Paul Richards <paul at originative.co.uk> writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Imagine something like Photoshop being written on the most recent
>>>>>version of Mac OS X and finding that compatibility only worked
>>>>>forward.  That would mean that most users out there would have to
>>>>>upgrade their OS in order to use the most recent version of Photoshop!
>>>>
>>>>Yes, that is usually how it goes.
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't believe it does. Can anyone provide real world examples of
>>>this happening that we can consider?
>>>
>>
>>You know, I'm completely outraged that I can't use MSWord 2005 on my 
>>Windows 3.1 system!  I even installed the win32s library!  Don't those 
>>bozos at Microsoft care at all about forwards compatibility?
> 
> 
> We're talking minor releases across stable branches here. This
> issue is not whether 6.1 should run on 5.3 it's whether 5.4 should
> run on 5.3
> 
> I would expect software developed on XP service pack 2 to be able
> to run on a fresh CD install of XP.
> 

No that's not the case.  Go look at software retail boxes sometime.
They often say "Requires Windows FOO Service Pack BAR".  This was
especially true with NT 4.0 and its incredibly long lifespan.  I would 
fully expect that software that comes out in the next year to start 
requiring SP2 for XP.


Scott.