Who needs ABI compatibility when your software is OSS? You only need API compatibility at that point.
Because almost certainly someone out there will want to use it. And they should be able to, because that is the entire point of free software: user freedom.
People who are complaining would prefer a world of isolated apps downloaded from signed stores, but Linux was born at an optimistic time when the goal was software that cooperate and form a system, and which distribution does not depend on a central trusted platform.
I do not believe that there is any real technical issue discussed here, just drastically different goals.
Even if we ship as source, even if the user has the skills to build it, even if the make file supports every version of the kernel, plus all other material variety, plus who knows how many dependencies, what exactly am I supposed to do when a user reports;
"I followed your instructions and it doesn't run".
Linux Desktop fails because it's not 1 thing, it's 100 things. And to get anything to run reliably on 95 of them you need to be extremely competent.
Distribution as source fails because there are too many unknown, and dependent parts.
Distribution as binary containers (Docker et al) are popular because it gives the app a fighting chance. While at the same time being a really ugly hack.
I've had so much trouble with package managers that I'm not even sure they are a good idea to begin with.
Stable ABIs for certain critical pieces of independently-updatable software (libc, OpenSSL, etc.) is not even that big of a lift or a hard tradeoff. I’ve never run into any issues with macOS’s libc because it doesn’t version the symbol for fopen like glibc does. It just requires commitment and forethought.
But you're not entirely wrong -- as long as you have API compatibility then it's just a rebuild, right? Well, no, because something always breaks and requires attention. The fact is that in the world of open source the devs/maintainers can't be as disciplined about API compat as you want them to be, and sometimes they have to break backwards compatibility for reasons (security, or just too much tech debt and maint load for obsolete APIs). Because every upstream evolves at a different rate, keeping a distro updated is just hard.
I'm not saying that statically linking things and continuing to run the binaries for decades is a good answer though. I'm merely explaining why I think your comment got downvoted.
