Comment by notepad0x90

Comment by notepad0x90 3 days ago

12 replies

I like being able to run games from early 2000s. Being able to write software that will still run longer after you're gone used to be a thing. But here we are with linux abandoning things like 'a.out'. Microsoft doesn't have the luxury to presume that it's users can recompile software, fork it, patch it,etc.. When your software doesn't work on the latest Windows, most people blame Microsoft not the software author.

Gud 3 days ago

Ok, I prefer to use software which is future compatible, like ZFS, which is 128-bit.

“The file system itself is 128 bit, allowing for 256 quadrillion zettabytes of storage. All metadata is allocated dynamically, so no need exists to preallocate inodes or otherwise limit the scalability of the file system when it is first created. All the algorithms have been written with scalability in mind. Directories can have up to 248 (256 trillion) entries, and no limit exists on the number of file systems or the number of files that can be contained within a file system.”

https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19253-01/819-5461/6n7ht6qth/inde...

Don’t want to hit the quadrillion zettabyte limit..

  • bhaney 3 days ago

    > Directories can have up to 248 (256 trillion) entries

    It took me a minute to figure out that this was supposed to be 2^48, but even then that's ~281 trillion. What a weird time for the tera/tibi binary prefix confusion to show up, when there aren't even any units being used.

  • chuckadams 2 days ago

    Someone did some back-of-the-napkin math and calculated that to populate every byte in a 128 bit storage pool, you'd need to use enough energy to literally boil the oceans. There was a blog post on oracle.com that went into more detail, but no link into Oracle survives more than 10 years.

amarant 3 days ago

Wait are you saying Linux broke user-space? I've completely missed this and would like to know more, may I be so bold as to request a link?

  • cesarb 3 days ago

    > > But here we are with linux abandoning things like 'a.out'.

    > I've completely missed this and would like to know more, may I be so bold as to request a link?

    "A way out for a.out" https://lwn.net/Articles/888741/

    "Linux 6.1 Finishes Gutting Out The Old a.out Code" https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linux-6.1-Gutting-Out-a.out (with links to two earlier articles)

  • PunchyHamster 3 days ago

    Linux does occasionally remove stuff that seem to have no users and there is no good reason to have a.out binaries since... the late '90s ?

    • notepad0x90 3 days ago

      I was playing with some asm code and generating a.out with nasm, got stuck on why it wouldn't load..turns out linux stopped supporting it. When they say "no one uses it" they mean packages and stuff, they don't care about private code you have lying around and other use cases. With a widely deployed platform like windows, they can't assume things like that. There are certainly very valid business application that go back decades. There are literally systems that have 20+ years up time out there.

simondotau 3 days ago

I don’t like running games from the early 2000s outside of a sandbox of some description. If you disagree, it's because we don't have sandboxes which don't suck. Ideally, running old software in a sandbox on a modern OS should be borderline transparent — not like installing XP in a virtual machine.

While I understand the appeal of software longevity, and I think it's a noble and worthy pursuit, I also think there is an under-appreciated benefit in having unmaintained software less likely to function on modern operating systems. Especially right now, where the concept of serious personal computer security for normal consumers is arguably less than two decades old.