They basically had a cart populated with random-ass stuff they found in computer shops to the maximum of the USB spec supported wirh hubs. They inserted the hub and watched Windows crash until everything is fixed and worked, then they started yanking it when it was still discovering devices.
I think you need an emulator to run Civ1, though. My kid was asking if we could try it and I'm like "I don't think I can find that on Steam..."
With Linux you're stuck trying to decipher the ramblings of neckbeards.
Linux forums might be obtuse but at least they'll have actual technical details about the problem. Almost without fail any "fix" they propose won't work on your system because it's for a different distro that was EoL 5 years ago but they'll at least give you something to work with.
For example, people trawling the Microsoft Q&A forum for low hanging fruit to provide advice to and build out their little home computer repair business profile.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/answers/tags/824/windows-h...
Some of these answers are really dubious. Some of these questions are really dubious.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130226221212/http://windows95t...
Like the fiasco with Python3 and Wayland. It's so clear the developers just thought “Wow, people will just switch” not realizing how much people demand an absolute drop-in replacement and then maybe later you can think of slowly deprecating features to discourage new users from adopting them. Rust realizes this with editions. Yes, it's a big investment for them to continue to support it, but the alternative is that Python library maintainers now have to have this big investment themselves because they have to maintain like 6 different versions of the same library because Python doesn't understand the value of backwards compatibility. z/OS still supports 50s COBOL frameworks and for good reason. No one is going to rewrite that.
These developers when you talk about them really do not seem to understand that people aren't jumping to rewrite code or maintain different versions at the same time and very often even call them “lazy” for not doing it like they're not using their time for other things. Say you're a company, and you can pay a developer for his time:
1) Have him develop new features that make you more money.
2) Have him fix bugs that cost you money.
3) Have him rewrite existing code that will do nothing new, and will probably introduce new bugs again so you can later go to 2.
Which is more attractive?
You're right the "commercial" timeline of Python would have supported Python 2 forever because big paying clients demand it but I think that would have led to a worse outcome for the OSS community.
It's not “by far”, the weird part is that they broke backwards compatibility but also didn't fix some of the other issues and many of the fixes didn't need backwards compatibility to be broken and most of all, the way Python works would allow code written in multiple versions to interact and they should absolutely have allowed that and allow Python3 code to call Python2 modules.
> You're right the "commercial" timeline of Python would have supported Python 2 forever because big paying clients demand it but I think that would have led to a worse outcome for the OSS community.
The cost of switching was ridiculous and it still is. “venv” needing to exist is symptomatic of the bizarre ecosystem and developers being expected to maintain like 6 different versions of the same library at times and when they don't as user you are screwed.
With Rust, multiple editions can just compile together. Crates written in one edition can be called from code written in another edition.
Also, the optimism just highlighted how out of touch they were, that they thought people would actually just rewrite everything in 5 years is bizarre and suggests a fundamental lack of understanding to me. Same thing with Wayland and GPLv3 to me. This is so common in the FOSS world. People come with a new version and just expect that everyone will quickly switch because they consider their new version better, not realizing that A) even if others think it's better, they still won't “just switch” because that costs time and money and B), very often they don't even think it's better which they never bothered to even investigate before they got started. They just assumed that everyone will agree because the “I have no idea what Xfce is or does, sorry.” people are completely out of touch with the world to be honest and it's pretty clear they're often living in some very specific online bubble and don't understand the concerns of companies, users, and just everyone outside of their own little bubble.
I think you are pointing out the conflict that can then arise, but that I don't think is avoidable: a company has relatively short-term aim of surviving until year-end (or quarter-end) and making money. FOSS contributors are hoping to create something worthwhile by whatever value system they adhere to (elegance, public recognition etc).
This is a debatable position. Linux distros usually do this, but a lot of modern applications ship with all their dependencies. I'd say the former is more efficient and generally better from a user perspective and the latter is more stable and is generally better from a developer/maintainer perspective. Open source encourages the former, proprietary software encourages the latter.
Clearly this can't be enforced, but I've always found it bad practice to allocate memory inside a library.
Now you can just ship the user your machine and software can theoretically be immortal.
Maybe there's a tiny exception with like, Apple for Adobe. They might place a phone call between executives to warn them to avoid angering the "pros" who use those apps, but I think it's more because their users internally who also use Adobe apps would notice in the course of testing the betas, than a practice of testing many apps with the intent to ensure they work correctly.
To me what this feels like is that Microsoft's culture to this day considers it would be a breach of trust to ship an OS update that, from your perspective breaks your programs that used to work fine. Compared to the approach everywhere else today that the platform owner simply dictates How Things Will Be Now.
The stuff around SimCity in this article is poorly written. It seems the author has misunderstood it to have been a one-off special case. I looked back at Joel Spolsky's article, and he does make it quite clear that the SimCity example was just one of many: "it still ran old 16 bit software perfectly. Microsoft obsessed about this, spending a big chunk of change testing every old program they could find with Windows 95".
The article does later mention "Windows XP’s hidden database of app fixes" but doesn't appreciate that the concept really started with Windows 95, and in a big way, not "just to cover up one game’s bug".
> On beta versions of Windows 95, SimCity wasn’t working in testing. Microsoft tracked down the bug and added specific code to Windows 95 that looks for SimCity. If it finds SimCity running, it runs the memory allocator in a special mode that doesn’t free memory right away. That’s the kind of obsession with backward compatibility that made people willing to upgrade to Windows 95.
[0] https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/05/24/strategy-letter-ii...
It might have been this article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34034413
The only positive thing I can say about it is that it doesn’t appear to be written by AI.
I don’t think this person truly understands what they’re writing about, they did a little research, made some screenshots and put enough words in the article so that it will show up in search engines.
It’s reminiscent to me of many articles on Windows error codes, almost all of them are basically generic, generally quite long with drivel, and steering you to install some “fix it” software. Any technical person coming across these just finds them annoying as they clearly gamed the search results with unhelpful content.
Microsoft discovered this in their testing, before they released the new Windows version. In response, they added our agent to a list of programs that Windows would lie to about the Windows version. If our program asked, we would be told the previous version.
Well, that was great, in that our program didn't terminate early (or whatever it did). But now, even after we updated our agent, it still wouldn't know whether it was running on the new version of Windows, and so would not audit it correctly!
This dance shows just how far Microsoft went with backward compatibility. We were not a top-1000-most-used program by any means, but they knew about us and tested us and fixed for us. (I mean, we didn't want it, in this case, but it was still impressive.)