One reason I often see for calling for new features or changes in GNU/Linux is a form of ageism—dismissing something because it’s “too old” or “antiquated.”
This is frequently said about components like Xorg. However, this argument overlooks an important fact: just because something is old doesn’t mean it hasn’t been updated. Many of these systems, including Xorg, receive regular modern updates.
Consider that much of what we use today, including the Linux kernel itself, is written in C. C is around 52 years old, having been introduced long before many users were born. C++, the object-oriented extension of C, emerged in 1985. Even desktop environments like GNOME and KDE, which date back to the mid-to-late 1990s, are older than many of today’s users.
The key point here is that age often indicates that something works, not that it’s obsolete. If these technologies were broken or inadequate, they wouldn’t have remained in use for so long. Instead, they’ve been continually developed, extended, and improved over time. Programming languages and system components are not like beat up old cars—they aren’t designed to be temporary. In fact, many are built to last for decades, if not longer. Take COBOL, for example: developed in 1960, it’s still in widespread use today, particularly in financial systems that many of us rely on heavily.
When considering new programming languages or technologies, it’s important to apply skepticism rather than buying into the hype. Just because something is new doesn’t mean it’s better. Promises of innovation are common, but they don’t always hold up under scrutiny. That’s not to say that new tools are inherently bad, but we should evaluate them critically. Time-tested, proven systems often hold more value than the latest trends, and proponents of new technologies rarely highlight their shortcomings.
) COBOL available expertise.
