Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 21:44:55 +0200 From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@portaone.com> To: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> Cc: Paul Richards <paul@originative.co.uk> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/compat/linux linux_socket.c Message-ID: <4230A3B7.1000402@portaone.com> In-Reply-To: <42308769.5080506@samsco.org> References: <422E407B.4080507@portaone.com> <86k6oht386.fsf@xps.des.no> <422F087F.9030906@portaone.com> <20050309.085035.129356491.imp@bsdimp.com> <422F6703.70409@portaone.com> <20050310161607.GO98930@myrddin.originative.co.uk> <86d5u7fn1z.fsf@xps.des.no> <20050310171917.GQ98930@myrddin.originative.co.uk> <42308769.5080506@samsco.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Scott Long wrote: > Paul Richards wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 06:06:16PM +0100, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote: >> >>> Paul Richards <paul@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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4230A3B7.1000402>