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

[Nate Williams]

[ Reduced the CC hell ]

> > >>>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?
> 
> I would expect software developed on XP service pack 2 to be able
> to run on a fresh CD install of XP.

Case 1:
  Boy, I would expect my USB software to work on Win98 version 1, but it
  doesn't.  I have to upgrade to a (minor release) Win98 version 2 in
  order to get my software to work.

  Damn Microsoft, never cares about forward compatability.

Case 2:
  Boy, it would be really nice if I could run my packet sniffing
  software developed on XP-SP2 to work on XP, but dog gone it, it
  doesn't work because it requires a bunch of the new features of XP-SP2
  (firewall etc..).  Damn Microsoft, why don't they care about forward
  compatability.

Case 3:
  Boy, it would be really nice if I could take my JDK1.4 application and
  run it on JDK1.3, but it uses those dang regex code that only exists
  in JDK1.4.  Damn Sun, why did they add functionality to Java.  Both
  Java versions claim to be 'JDK2' compliant.  They obviously weren't
  thinking when they changed their API's and ABI's.  That 'write once,
  run anywhere' is a load of crap because they dare add functionality
  and fix bugs.

Case 4 (nahh, I'll bow out now, since I've got a million of them, all
real, all either experienced or in some cases caused by yours truly....)




Nate