@BrodieOnLinux As a former #PaleMoon developer, I like the fact that I can build Windows software with backwards compatibility while in the latest Windows version and toolchain. I can build PM in W11 while resting easy that the receipient of my build can run it just fine in their Windows 7 machine

Can't really say the same with Linux when you try to package the binaries in a distro-agnostic tarball. You have to build in a specific environment like a CentOS 7 with a specific GCC that you know is stable like GCC 9 (used to be GCC 7 even). This is what Pale Moon does to make its tarballs as compatible as possible with most Linux distros btw. Gets even worse if you are targetting 32-bit. You'd want it to be CentOS 6 and GCC 4.9 because there's a good chance that the audience for that binary is stuck on ancient hardware and therefore an ancient userland too (that was still maintained), unlike Windows 32-bit where there are modern users who specifically need 32-bit for their 32-bit only NPAPI plugins. Thankfully CentOS 6 went EOL and 32-bit Linux can therefore be phased out (it's a pain trying to keep compiling within the constraints of a 4GB system, and cross-compiling from 64-bit isn't as straightforward in Linux as Windows is unfortunately)

I can appreciate Windows in that front.