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

[Scott Long]

Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> 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?
> 
> 
> Well, know what? This is really bad example. For what MS can't be 
> blaimed it is the lack of forward and backward compatibility. I still 
> can run Office 2003 on Windows 95 without any problems.
> 
> -Maxim

Well, the only reason this is possible is because MSWord ships with a 
complete set of system DLLs with MSWord that act as compatibility shims.
But yes, it was a poor example and an unsuccessful attempt at humor on
my part.

Scott