Ubuntu installers?

[Jeffrey Walton]

On Fri, Dec 23, 2022 at 11:56 AM Ralf Mardorf via ubuntu-users
<ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
> Rewriting software completely and dropping backwards compatibility
> sometimes makes sense, but it's done excessively nowadays.

I call it the "Abandonware" model of software development. In 6 months
the current version of software is not only dropped, it is not ABI/API
compatible. It wreaks havoc on distros with Long Term Support (LTS)
goals/garuntees for end users.

The abandonware model of development seemed to have taken hold in web
technologies. It then spread like a cancer to other technology stacks.

> Soname does exist. It's possible to stay with an interfaces and to link
> against updated shared libraries...
>
> /usr/lib/libfoo.so.1 -> /usr/lib/libfoo.so.1.0
> /usr/lib/libfoo.so.1 -> /usr/lib/libfoo.so.1.1
> /usr/lib/libfoo.so.1 -> /usr/lib/libfoo.so.1.2
>
> ...but instead we way to often get...
>
> /usr/lib/libfoo.so.1 -> /usr/lib/libfoo.so.1.0
> /usr/lib/libfoo.so.2 -> /usr/lib/libfoo.so.2.0
> /usr/lib/libfoo.so.3 -> /usr/lib/libfoo.so.3.0
>
> ...a new incompatible interface with each update.

Yeah, and many folks say Windows is DLL hell. I find Linux to be just
as bad at times.

> It started a while back that release candidates of beta versions became
> version 1.0. You might remember that a lot of distros dropped the old
> working nv open-source NVIDIA driver in favour of the nouveau driver,
> bevor the nouveau driver worked with at least 70% of the graphics and at
> the same time it was introduced that default GNOME sessions required 3D
> support.

I often wonder what the hell was someone thinking when some decisions
were made. Or what drugs they were taking in the case of GNOME.

Jeff