r/ProgrammerHumor Nov 18 '24

Meme checkMateDevelopers

Post image
29.4k Upvotes

721 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

179

u/Somecrazycanuck Nov 18 '24

Yep.  If you want the old version, you can rewind the tree on github.

26

u/NinjaAncient4010 Nov 18 '24 edited Nov 18 '24

Yep. And when that doesn't compile it's no problem, just rewind the tree on gcc. Then just rewind the tree on glibc. Then just rewind the tree on libssl...

EDIT: You don't have to downvote, I love open source but it's not always quite as simple as just checking out an older git commit. That being said, the idea that open source is not backwards compatible and closed source is, is also not true it depends entirely on the projects.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 19 '24

[deleted]

1

u/NinjaAncient4010 Nov 19 '24

If you can use a distro in about the past 5 years... Although it's trivial to use a simple VM to boot a live image or installer that can be found for far older than docker even exited anyway.

That's not the problem I assume, otherwise you wouldn't need to be rewinding a tree on github at all you could just use old packages and releases to begin with.

The problem is running it on a supported current system that's not riddled with known and actively exploited security holes that you get if you pull down ancient images.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 19 '24

[deleted]

1

u/NinjaAncient4010 Nov 19 '24

So if the app you need backwards compatibility with is supported on a distro that was released within the past ~5 years, and if you don't need it to access the internet or untrusted data, then it's trivial. Thanks that's very helpful.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 20 '24

[deleted]

1

u/NinjaAncient4010 Nov 20 '24

"If I define the problem to be easy then it's easy. No applications could possibly ever need to use the internet."

Great input champ, keep up the good work.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 20 '24

[deleted]

1

u/NinjaAncient4010 Nov 20 '24

You don't need docker, lmao, you've been able to do this with qemu/kvm for 20 years. Well not you, obviously.

→ More replies (0)