Linux 4.0 • Hacker News Board

Re: Linux 4.0

#51

Post by JelteF » Mon, Apr 13, 2015, 7:34 AM UTC

SquareWheel wrote: post #40

zak_mc_kracken wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's funny, because the reason why Microsoft decided to skip from Windows 8 to Windows 10 is because there's too much software out there that tests that the version of Windows starts with "9" and interprets this as they are currently running Windows 95 or 98. Some things never change.

Highly improbable to be the case. Microsoft damaged XP compatibility with Vista; that they would care about software built for 95-98 in 2015 seems unlikely by comparison. It's also just a product name. Programmers will check the kernel version, not the "friendly" consumer-facing string. I realize this information has been circulated around, but unless this has been confirmed by Microsoft please don't claim facts with…

I hope you do understand that it would not damaging compatibility with 95-98, but with windows 8. The class of programs that this is for runs fine on Windows 8, because they are not executing legacy code for 95-98. But the check for 95-98 would return true for windows 9. So the legacy code will be executed, probably breaking stuff because the API has changed a lot.

And as for some evidence this is the case: https://searchcode.com/?q=if%28version%2Cstartswith%28%22win...

Re: Linux 4.0

#52

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Apr 13, 2015, 7:36 AM UTC

SquareWheel wrote: post #48

zak_mc_kracken wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Programmers will check the kernel version, not the "friendly" consumer-facing string. Cute. New to the profession? Chew on this: http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/2hwlrk/new_windo...

A deleted comment by somebody claiming to be a Microsoft developer, commenting on an "internal rumours". That's not what I would consider "evidence". And there's no need to use the condescending "cute". I certainly wasn't trying to start a flame war here. I'm asking you to verify information before repeating it as fact.

[deleted]

Re: Linux 4.0

#53

Post by SquareWheel » Mon, Apr 13, 2015, 7:47 AM UTC

JelteF wrote: post #51

SquareWheel wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Highly improbable to be the case. Microsoft damaged XP compatibility with Vista; that they would care about software built for 95-98 in 2015 seems unlikely by comparison. It's also just a product name. Programmers will check the kernel version, not the "friendly" consumer-facing string. I realize this information has been circulated around, but unless this has been confirmed by Microsoft please don't claim facts with…

I hope you do understand that it would not damaging compatibility with 95-98, but with windows 8. The class of programs that this is for runs fine on Windows 8, because they are not executing legacy code for 95-98. But the check for 95-98 would return true for windows 9. So the legacy code will be executed, probably breaking stuff because the API has changed a lot. And as for some evidence this is the case: https://s…

I do understand that. We'd be talking about programs built in the 95-98 era however, and the majority would not be in current use. The biggest exception would be enterprise, though if they're upgrading to a recently released Windows version they'd (hopefully!) be using more modern software too.

At the end of the day, we're still only guessing at Microsoft's rationale. Esoteric compatibility issues seem lower down the list from issues like breaking away from the Windows 8 name (which has accumulated negative association in the public view).

Until Microsoft says for sure, it's just a bit silly to make the claim as fact.

Re: Linux 4.0

#54

Post by anon4 » Mon, Apr 13, 2015, 8:42 AM UTC

jjcm wrote: post #9

Windows Threshold OSX Yosemite Linux "Hurr durr I'ma sheep" ----- In some ways it's comforting that such an intergral part of all of our lives doesn't have to be branded and packaged in a way that's stylistic. It's nice knowing that this truly is a community project, and that it's an effort of people - not some megacorp who needs to market it to the highest amount of people possible. Great work everyone who worked on…

And before that it was "Diseased Newt". It's not like these names have ever been marketing-visible or descriptory. At least with this one it sort of makes sense, since 2015 is the year of the sheep in Chinese zodiac.

2015 Year of the Linux Desktop, obviously.

Re: Linux 4.0

#55

Post by anon4 » Mon, Apr 13, 2015, 8:54 AM UTC

SquareWheel wrote: post #53

JelteF wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope you do understand that it would not damaging compatibility with 95-98, but with windows 8. The class of programs that this is for runs fine on Windows 8, because they are not executing legacy code for 95-98. But the check for 95-98 would return true for windows 9. So the legacy code will be executed, probably breaking stuff because the API has changed a lot. And as for some evidence this is the case: https://s…

I do understand that. We'd be talking about programs built in the 95-98 era however, and the majority would not be in current use. The biggest exception would be enterprise, though if they're upgrading to a recently released Windows version they'd (hopefully!) be using more modern software too. At the end of the day, we're still only guessing at Microsoft's rationale. Esoteric compatibility issues seem lower down the…

Microsoft would never say for sure.

And you're discounting company-internal products that were built in the 95-98 era, then updated when new business regulations came out, but were never rewritten in a modern language and the company wouldn't spend time and money to port them to Windows 9 when they worked fine on every previous version -- they'll just wait until a newer version of Windows fixes the problem or Microsoft very forcibly drop support for 8 completely.

Re: Linux 4.0

#56

Post by shaurz » Mon, Apr 13, 2015, 8:59 AM UTC

Linux has an EXTRAVERSION, but no INTROVERSION???

Re: Linux 4.0

#57

Post by dkns » Mon, Apr 13, 2015, 9:08 AM UTC

zak_mc_kracken wrote: post #24

4.0? Why would anyone use an OS that's six versions behind Windows?

Not sure if I'm missing the obvious sarcasm but Linux is kernel, not OS.

Re: Linux 4.0

#58

Post by tshepang » Mon, Apr 13, 2015, 9:14 AM UTC

jumpwah wrote: post #45

The end draws closer: http://i.imgur.com/eZdoFUW.jpg (See the kernel version just below the t-800 box in the center.)

nice catch :)

Re: Linux 4.0

#59

Post by qznc » Mon, Apr 13, 2015, 9:31 AM UTC

jumpwah wrote: post #45

The end draws closer: http://i.imgur.com/eZdoFUW.jpg (See the kernel version just below the t-800 box in the center.)

> v4.1 is going to be one of the bigger ones –Linus Torvalds, https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/4/12/178

Re: Linux 4.0

#60

Post by cbd1984 » Mon, Apr 13, 2015, 10:18 AM UTC

molteanu wrote: post #46

jjcm wrote: post #9

Windows Threshold OSX Yosemite Linux "Hurr durr I'ma sheep" ----- In some ways it's comforting that such an intergral part of all of our lives doesn't have to be branded and packaged in a way that's stylistic. It's nice knowing that this truly is a community project, and that it's an effort of people - not some megacorp who needs to market it to the highest amount of people possible. Great work everyone who worked on…

in sync with the stupid content tracker

> in sync with the stupid content tracker

In his own words, he keeps naming things after himself.

(Although that's not entirely accurate. Linux was named by the guy who uploaded it to the ftp site; Linus' original name for it was Freax. (A 'Free' 'Unix'; the 'x' at the end being de rigueur for a Unix variant.) Hooray for opinionated people who just wantonly change names with no regard for the creator's desire, I suppose.)

https://lwn.net/Articles/325056/