On Saturday 16 December 2006 10:40, James Tremblay wrote: > On Sat, 2006-12-16 at 08:51 +0200, Janne Karhunen wrote: > > On Saturday 16 December 2006 00:18, Stevens wrote: > > > re: backwards compatability: > > > > > > Will rpms for 10.1 run on 10.2? > > > > It's actually quite sad that all packaging effort in Linux needs > > to be endlessly replicated. Same thing done over and over again > > for years. Time for Novell propose something radical in rpm.org > > (now that it's getting on again)? > > > > > > -- > > // Janne > > I don't think any software will ever be in a position to be compatible > with all older versions, however the "buildservice" goes a long way > towards not repeating previosly done work. if an RPM gets loaded into > the buildservice and a new distro gets added to the "compile for" list > it will do everything it can to migrate that RPM to the new distro, > possibly in the future this will be automatic. > James
This is an observation: I should think that those who code for Linux should make provision for backward compatibility. For the most part, M/S has done so. I can run most programs written for the last version of DOS, and, so far as I know, most programs written for Windows 3.3, in XP. There are some exceptions that I'm aware of, but in spite of my distrust of M/S, they have done a fairly decent job of keeping stuff usable. (It is interesting that some earlier versions of their own WORD are not only not compatible, but not even readable by their latest incarnation! (I don't know that myself, since I avoid all M/S programs except the OS itself.) WordPerfect has been an _excellent_ home for all my wp needs on Windows, ever since WordStar! I am so far impressed by OO, but I wish they had imitated WordPerfect instead of WORD, but of course, I know why they did not. A really neat trick would have been to make it possible to emulate whichever your choice might be! --doug -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
