IMHO - disagree but it depends on point of view so this is not ”you are wrong” but ”in my view it’s not like that”.

I think it’s the role of the software vendor to offer a package for a modern platform.

Not the role of OS vendor to support infinite legacy tail.

I don’t personally ever need generational program binary compatibility. What I generally want is data compatibility.

I don’t want to operate on my data with decades old packages.

My point of view is either you innovate or offer backward compatibility. I much prefer forward thinking innovation with clear data migration path rather than having binary compatibility.

If I want 100% reproducible computing I think viable options are open source or super stable vendors - and in the latter case one can license the latest build. Or using Windows which mostly _does_ support backward binaries and I agree it is not a useless feature.

Software shouldn't rot. If you ignore the cancer of everything as a subscription service, algorithms don't need to be tweaked every 6 months. A tool for accounting or image editing or viewing text files or organizing notes can be written well once and doesn't need to change.

Most software that was ever written was done so by companies that no longer exist, or by people (not working for a software company) no longer associated with those company they wrote the tool for. In many of these cases the source is not available, so there is no way to recompile it or update it for a new platform, but the tool works as good as ever.

Binary backcompat is incredibly important.

I didn't say backcompat isn't important.

There are lots of other ways to run old binaries than at your main OS level.

There are tons of other platforms that precede the current ones.

I would not like the requirements from those platforms to hamper the current gen os.

I do think it's valuable to be able to run the programs from those platforms.

false equivalence much?

On Windows I occasionally still run useful software compiled before 2000.