| |||||||||||||
SELF: Anatomy of an (alleged) failureSELF: Anatomy of an (alleged) failurePosted Jun 25, 2010 3:36 UTC (Fri) by ajf (subscriber, #10844)In reply to: SELF: Anatomy of an (alleged) failure by epa Parent article: SELF: Anatomy of an (alleged) failure
Perhaps one reason Linux has never kept backwards compatibility as well as Apple (or Windows, or Solaris) is because we haven't had the infrastructure and tools to do so easily.It's a misunderstanding to say that Apple uses fat binaries because they care about backward compatibility; what they cared about, and implemented fat binaries to support, was cross-platform compatability. (The distinction is that they wanted new software to work with new operating system releases on both old and new hardware; they're less interested in new software working with old operating systems.)
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||