[pjmlp]

Most normal people don't buy new software all the time, most of them like to keep their old copies going as much as possible.

Most desktop computers still do, and in alternative there are USB stick variants.

Which doesn't change the fact regarding what drivers, for what set of OSes, are supported out of the box.

[arghwhat]

Desktop computers are unusual nowadays, despite being a decent option. They are gone from non-gaming retail stores from what I can tell, so it's much more of an active decision to get.

It is true that if you try to reuse your 2003 Office install you will fail, but such unsupported and deprecated software will also cause trouble on a modern PC. Even if it runs, using an old version of Outlook is extremely unsafe...

Common end-user hardware does not require drivers nowadays either (not even printers due to IPPAnywhere and co., even though manufacturers still ship them for some reason).

Things are always hairy outside that though - macOS no longer permit kernel extensions, and you know you are in a dark place if DKMS gets involved on Linux.

[pjmlp]

macOS does not permit kernel extensions, because contrary to GNU/Linux they take ABI and kernel stability seriously, and are incrementally turning the OS into a proper microkernel, with all extensions running in userspace.

[kelnos]

Do you have a source on Apple working to turn macOS into a proper microkernel? Couldn't find anything. Certainly Mach is a microkernel, but Darwin very much isn't. I do know that Apple has worked to expose some kernel-level hardware interfacing features in safer ways than giving full kernel extension access, but otherwise that's it?

[pjmlp]

How do you call a kernel whose drivers and extensions are all in user space?

WWDC sessions on that roadmap state quite clearly that is the long term end goal, all the kernel extension mechanisms will only be available in userspace, with one year transition for each subsystem after an userspace API is made available.