I had to run a Linux binary compiled for Ubuntu 10.something a few years ago. I couldn't get the drivers to work properly in libvirt and getting the binary to run on modern Linux was practically impossible, even with 32 bit support installed.
The downside of dynamically linked binaries: every tool of medium complexity needs a close-enough version of a common library, and once those get upgraded, the tool dies.
Most statically compiled version should work with a compatible enough libc, but I haven't seen many old programs like that.
Wine, on the other hand, runs tools from the 90s just fine, as long as they're 32 bit.
Many programs are dynamically linked to at the very least, libc. If the system libc is older than what the binary was developed for, it will often fail. Failures going the other direction are less common, but can and do still happen. If the binary was statically linked with everything it needs, you've got a pretty good chance it'll work, but that's a bit harder to do with GUI programs that need to interact with X or Wayland.
It depends. I've found for example, if i compile on Ubuntu or Debian, it will probably work on any Ubuntu, Debian, or Debian-based distro released at or newer than the one I compiled it on. There are other cross-compatible examples.
More broadly, there are things like manylinux and MUSL which allow cross-distro applications.
I agree - the model I use for why containers (Docker etc) exist is to abstract over Linux ABI incompatibility. I don't think they're a great solution, as it complicates software distribution. I should be able to distribute an executable and have it just work.
Linux isn't the source of the incompatibility. The kernel itself is very strict about not breaking userspace. Your userspace is breaking compatibility on its own, containers fix it by shipping the userspace components within the container, which only works because the kernel maintained compatibility. If the kernel broke compatibility you would need to use a VM so you can run a different kernel version.
Hah well yes for Windows. This is a mercy, but my mindset is still "Works on Windows, Linux and Mac". (The last being dropped for anything that requires Cuda...)
Yesterday I built a binary in an Ubuntu 24.04 Podman container and tried to run it on my Debian Bookworm system:
Because I have glibc 2.36, you see.The other way around works fine, though, and you can avoid it by statically linking the binary when you build it.
I had to run a Linux binary compiled for Ubuntu 10.something a few years ago. I couldn't get the drivers to work properly in libvirt and getting the binary to run on modern Linux was practically impossible, even with 32 bit support installed.
The downside of dynamically linked binaries: every tool of medium complexity needs a close-enough version of a common library, and once those get upgraded, the tool dies.
Most statically compiled version should work with a compatible enough libc, but I haven't seen many old programs like that.
Wine, on the other hand, runs tools from the 90s just fine, as long as they're 32 bit.
AFAIK Wine will run 16-bit applications just fine now, through WoW64.
Many programs are dynamically linked to at the very least, libc. If the system libc is older than what the binary was developed for, it will often fail. Failures going the other direction are less common, but can and do still happen. If the binary was statically linked with everything it needs, you've got a pretty good chance it'll work, but that's a bit harder to do with GUI programs that need to interact with X or Wayland.
It depends. I've found for example, if i compile on Ubuntu or Debian, it will probably work on any Ubuntu, Debian, or Debian-based distro released at or newer than the one I compiled it on. There are other cross-compatible examples.
More broadly, there are things like manylinux and MUSL which allow cross-distro applications.
Containers fix this.
As long as the container bundles the right libc, the program should work.
Just like Python venv, The system is too broken that it's the only real practical fix
I agree - the model I use for why containers (Docker etc) exist is to abstract over Linux ABI incompatibility. I don't think they're a great solution, as it complicates software distribution. I should be able to distribute an executable and have it just work.
Linux isn't the source of the incompatibility. The kernel itself is very strict about not breaking userspace. Your userspace is breaking compatibility on its own, containers fix it by shipping the userspace components within the container, which only works because the kernel maintained compatibility. If the kernel broke compatibility you would need to use a VM so you can run a different kernel version.
That's what win32 is for...
Hah well yes for Windows. This is a mercy, but my mindset is still "Works on Windows, Linux and Mac". (The last being dropped for anything that requires Cuda...)
Win32 is the stable ABI for Linux, too.