[nix23]

Some, not all.

And Wine/Proton is (i would say) more compatible with old Windows-Apps then Windows itself, not even talking about dosbox/dosbox-x.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

Ironically what this means is that Linux Desktop has better compatibility with Windows binaries than it does with its own binaries from the near past. The Windows APIs are stable enough to make that possible.

[pjmlp]

So what is the value of Linux when it needs to play OS/2 Windows compatibility flag?

It did plenty of good to OS/2 native applications.

And some is still more than I could say for something compiled in Red Hat Linux (!Enterprise) or Mandrake, to put it in perspective regarding 2000.

[nix23]

> So what is the value of Linux when it needs to play OS/2 Windows compatibility flag?

What's the value of Windows if it has worse compatibility to is former incarnations?

>And some is still more than I could say for something compiled in Red Hat Linux (!Enterprise) or Mandrake, to put it in perspective regarding 2000

It could be always worse and better, let's talk about z/OS

[pjmlp]

Except it doesn't, not to the extent of how bad Linux does it.

I really would like to see IBM marketing materials about the Year of z/OS Desktop.

[nix23]

You twist thing as you go, for backward compatibility no one can match z/OS. As for the desktop...let's wait for linux or bsd to do that (or not)....or iOS/Android (worst outcome of them all).