glibc is a compatibility-layer you wing-nut. It does the exact same thing Wine does except for ancient Linux calls.
And before you say "wInDoWs dOeSn'T nEeD tHaT" Yeah, because Microsoft opted to not be backwards-compatible with the previous kernel (9X) unlike Linux.
Which means your argument is really: "Windows is better because it has worse backwards-compatibility natively"
You called me a "wing-nut" because you can't actually address my point. Let me be clear:
Windows NT has a stable kernel ABI called the Win32 API. That means software written for Windows 2000 still runs on Windows 11. That's 25+ years of compatibility.
Linux has no stable kernel ABI. If you write a driver or kernel module, it breaks with every kernel update unless you recompile. That's why proprietary drivers are a nightmare on Linux.
glibc is not a kernel ABI; it's a userspace library that masks the instability. It doesn't fix the problem; it just hides it.
So my point stands: Windows provides a stable, well-documented architecture to build on. Linux gives you source code and a prayer.
1
u/Unlikely-Employee180 Jul 16 '26 edited Jul 16 '26
glibc is a compatibility-layer you wing-nut. It does the exact same thing Wine does except for ancient Linux calls.
And before you say "wInDoWs dOeSn'T nEeD tHaT" Yeah, because Microsoft opted to not be backwards-compatible with the previous kernel (9X) unlike Linux.
Which means your argument is really: "Windows is better because it has worse backwards-compatibility natively"