Well from the article:
"The fact that these design decisions are still with us and worth talking about shows that their weaknesses were not immediately obvious and, additionally, that these designs lasted long enough to become sufficiently entrenched that simply replacing them would cause more harm than good."
Those who care deeply about such things have probably already gone to those other OSes. Not a very popular decision, but good for them.
For the rest of us, apps are more important than the OS, and we prefer to keep our existing apps running. On Linux.
So they are pretty much irrelevant to the bulk of us here reading Linux Weekly News.
Which I think is implied in the "more harm than good" phrase.
The fact that the OSes you mention occupy such small niches it could be argued shows that caring about backwards compatibility matters to most users.
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds