It just means Microsoft has put more emphasis on ABI compatibility. This makes sense. In the open source world ABI compatibility is less of an issue because you can just recompile if there are breaking changes. ABI compatibility is far more important in a commercial closed source context where the source may be lost forever when a company shuts down or discontinues a product line.
Even then the rights get dicey when they include third party libraries and development systems. Doom famously had issues with the sound library they used.
Plus, with commercial software it often happens that the code only builds cleanly on one specific ancient version of a closed source compiler in a specifically tweaked build environment that has been lost to the ages. Having the source helps a lot, but it is not a panacea.
It just means Microsoft has put more emphasis on ABI compatibility. This makes sense. In the open source world ABI compatibility is less of an issue because you can just recompile if there are breaking changes. ABI compatibility is far more important in a commercial closed source context where the source may be lost forever when a company shuts down or discontinues a product line.
It would be really nice to see open source being more widespread in games, though of course it's harder because they are more art than software.
Splitting code and audiovisual assets might work ?
Even then the rights get dicey when they include third party libraries and development systems. Doom famously had issues with the sound library they used.
Plus, with commercial software it often happens that the code only builds cleanly on one specific ancient version of a closed source compiler in a specifically tweaked build environment that has been lost to the ages. Having the source helps a lot, but it is not a panacea.
3 replies →
It didn’t for decades (in this specific regard) why does you think it could change?
People running Linux hate software shipped as binaries due to various technical and ideological reasons. Why would this change?