I’ve been using linux for a few years now, and I have yet to have any software “break” because of the idea of having the API updated.

Sure, but your software needs may not be representative. From what I’ve seen, the software lifecycle in an academic or scientific environment is rather different to that in business. In many cases, a lot of stuff just doesn’t get updated ever unless you can make a compelling business (ie financial bottom-line) case for it. In others, every single application (or update) has to go through a lengthy and and very expensive validation process.Kicking the problem downstream to application developers is all very well if they’re doing it for fun, or if they’ve got a good ongoing development effort. However, if you go to a business user and tell them they need to get someone in to patch up a bespoke app that they’ve been using completely unchanged for years, and that this will cost them money, they’ll throw you out in the street. There’s a vast ecosystem of really crappy old VB apps out there that no-one even has the source code for anymore. Yes, this is terrible from a software development perspective – but the business doesn’t care.

It’s easy to say that when you’re one of the very few people who don’t use obsolete software or equipment.Do you realise that people are still using computers that are ten years old? And even older software, mixed in with the latest stuff? Maybe Linux is only used by those who can afford a new computer every year.

This commentator has obviously never tried to install Windows XP or Vista on an old system and has no idea what they are talking about at all! I haven’t laughed this hard in awhile.The idea of removing obsolete functions from the Linux API is because there are plenty that are no longer being used. For instance, why would anyone still need kernel functions for 5 1/4 floppy drives? These functions are removed or added to existing functions to keep the Linux kernel more streamlined.But besides that, for those that think a stable API is a good thing, I would love to see you take the newest OS from M$ and apply an older kernel with those functions in it. Or better yet, re-compile the kernel to work with your hardware. Oh what’s that, you can’t. Exactly!Or better yet, take the newest stable release of Knoppix or Ubuntu and put it on a ten year system. Then do the same with Vista. Let me know which works better for you. Okay, I will be fair and allow you to put XP. Oh that didn’t work either… Well even if you could, try taking a guess at which one works better or faster. Guess which one you can run a desktop manager on. That’s right, just the other week someone got Compiz Fusion running on a P3 900mhz system. Try running Aero Glass and Vista on that.

Not keeping stable APIs makes the job of the OS developer easier, but it plays absolute Hell on anybody who develops downstream.

When people hear “Non stable API” they think non stable in terms of a program that is stable or non-stable. What the Linux world means when they say non-stable, is that the Linux Kernel can change, it can evolve, it isn’t stuck with what it previously had.A stable API means, once it is stable and operating, it can never be changed, only added to, for newer functions and compatibility. I fail to see how this is a good thing. Basically at some point in the future M$ is going to have to decide to scrap their current kernel and start all over again with a new system or the same system without the older functions and old hardware compatibility. Because they are going to get to the point where the kernel is so large and convoluted it just bogs down the system and fails to run properly. Maybe this is the problem with Vista.