On Lu, 03 mar 14, 18:57:09, Bret Busby wrote: > > I think that it is unfortunate that we are apparently expected to > throw out all of our hardware (including printers and other such > accessories), and, replace it all, each time a new version of an > operating system, is released. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence (not implying this is the case here though) > The MFP thing, as far as I am aware (I have not yet been able to use > all of its functionality, due to the Debian policy regarding > firmware) [...] Assumptions. Please start a new thread about how to get your MFP running with recent Debian. > But, I had understood that the purpose of creating UNIX (and, Linux > IS supposed to be a "UNIX-like" operating system), was to have > available an operating system, upon which software would run without > requiring modification to adapt to the underlying platform. Well, according to Wikipedia Unix was designed on the PDP-11[1]. Surely things have changed since, don't you think? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDP-11 > Thus, from what I understood, as a crude example, a program written > in "C", would include library and function calls, to standard > libraries, and could happily operate, if it was written in UNIX "C", > on any installation of UNIX, on any hardware platform. What if in the meantime it has been discovered those libraries and function calls are inefficient/buggy/etc. and better alternatives have been implemented? As programs move on to newer libraries and function calls the old ways just keep rotting because nobody is using them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_rot > That should be relatively simple - the preservation of the standard > libraries, and, the standard functions, with standard > functionalities, which could be expanded, if needed, but, at the > same time, preserving the standard functionalitites and libraries. If it would be simple it would have been done :) > I think that the problem that has occurred, is that, instead, > mutations have been imposed, so that functions and libraries, have > instead, been renamed or, replaced, in order to impose obsolescence, > rather than to maintain functionality. Not likely, not even for proprietary software. > It seems to be "Who needs functionality, when we have all of these > whistles and bells? They might not serve any useful purpose, but, > they catch your attention." "whistles and bells" also have their purpose, even if you (or me) disagree. > We are aware (I think, and, I believe) that Microsoft, in order to > force sales of its products, designs operating system and > application software, versions, that are not backward compatible, so > as to force sales, so that it can keep "squeezing blood out of a > stone", requiring people to be continually buying software that they > should not need. Hanlon's razor? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor I don't know and don't really care. Debian meets my needs on my home computers and at work (mostly a MS shop) I don't have much influence anyway. > But, Linux, and, the Linux community, should not have the same > objective; it should instead, be preserving the (that I believe to > be) primary objective of UNIX; that a programme that is written for > one version, can run on any version, unless it is harmful, in which > case, it gets blocked, and the user/administrator, notified. Just imagine that my IPTV device (BTW, AFAICT it runs Linux) would notify me that for security reasons it won't connect to the internet anymore. Or it just stops working because my ISP switched to IPv6 exclusively and it doesn't have support for that. Not very useful, isn't it? Of course, I could (still) switch back to old style TV, but then, I rather enjoy watching TV in FullHD and Dolby Digital 5.1 sound. And at some point providers will just shut down the old service, because there is not enough demand for it to justify the maintenance costs. I'd rather my IPTV provider keeps updating the software as needed and when this is not feasible anymore it offers me a good deal for an upgrade. Or even better, be able to watch IPTV with (e.g) Debian on one of my Raspberry Pis. Without any non-free firmware, of course. But unfortunately we are not there, *yet*. > If I write a FORTAN 4 program, I expect it to be able to run on a > FORTRAN 77 platform, or, a FORTRAN 90 platform (I do not know what > is the current latest ANSI standard version of FORTRAN - my FORTRAN > programming ended, when FORTRAN 90 was just a proposal), otherwise, > I would regard the subsequent platform on which it would not run, as > defective. > > Similarly, if I wrote a program in UNIX "C", I woud expect it to run > on any version of UNIX, and, hopefully, Linux, that was created at > or after the same time as the UNIC "C" development environment. I'm not a programmer, but as far as I understand FORTRAN is quite application specific, while C is general purpose. Aren't you comparing apples with oranges? > I have a photovoltaic inverter output data logging program, that is > apparently written for MS Windows XP (the only version of the > particular programme, of which I am aware). If that would not run on > MS Windows version 7 (from what I have seen of MS Windows 8, about > the best analogy to MS Windows 8, of which I can think, is that it > reminds me of what we used to shovel out of the yard, after the cows > were milked, except, the stuff that we used to shovel out of the > yard, after the cows were milked, was useful, and, out of it, coud > grow, useful things), I would regard MS Windows 7, as defective. Wait, wasn't Windows supposed to *not* be backwards compatible? > If nothing else, MS Windows 7, in the case of the photovoltaic > output data logging software programme, and, similarly, Linux, in > the case of drivers, should be able to run an instance of the > programme, in an emulation of the earlier version of the operating > system, on the curent version of the operating system, in a virtual > machine, or something, if it would not run "natively" in the later > version of the operating system. This can be done on Linux if current software doesn't meet your needs (which hasn't been established yet). In theory it should also be possible to run the MS Windows software on Linux (e.g. via wine), but I didn't follow your thread on that issue, so can't comment any further. > But, I see no reason why a later version of an operating system, > should not be able to natively run software written for an earlier > version of the operating system, with, if needed, protections > inbuilt into the later version of the operating system. Cost of maintenance. In case of FLOSS this means the time of interested contributors. Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature