Re: backward compatability of tools

[Dr. David Kirkby]

David Kirkby Ph.D,
email: address@hidden 
former email address: address@hidden
web page: http://www.david-kirkby.co.uk       
Amateur radio callsign: G8WRB

On 21 Feb 2003, Paul Eggert wrote:

> "Dr. David Kirkby" <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > If the developers insist on dropping backward compatibility, would it
> > not be better to at least do a test for old hardware/software
> 
> I wouldn't bother myself, because such a test would be a maintenance
> hassle.  We don't have the resources to keep track of all the quirks
> of ancient hardware.  We have enough trouble keeping track of the
> oddities of live systems.
> 
> At some point, when a system is no longer active, it is better for all
> concerned if we simply drop support for it.  The reality is that GNU
> developers have limited resources, and efforts expended on inactive
> systems draw needed resources away from more important areas.
> 
> > Should well written software not respond with informative messages, no
> > matter how invalid the user input?
> 
> This is not a question of invalid user input.  This is a question of
> bugs in the operating system.  Autoconf-generated scripts, no matter
> how well-written, cannot survive arbitrary OS bugs.

Okay my apology, 'user input' was not the correct term. However, if I
tried to install a piece of software that only run on Windoze 2000 and XP,
on a Windoze 95 machine, I would expect the software to have the sense to
tell me that it is not supported on Windoze 95. Perhaps that is a better
analogy.