Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Fri, 25 Apr 1997 18:19:02 -0400 | | From | "David S. Miller" <> | | Subject | Re: kernel structures 2.0.29->2.0.30 |
| |
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 10:17:09 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time) From: "W. Reilly Cooley" <wcooley@navi.net>
So what do Linus, Alan, David, Ted, et al have to say about these ideas and criticisms? It's no use chattering about it unless they like it.
Well here is what I have to say.
Making more threads of kernel releases is stupid, more complex for both the developer and the users, and is not going to happen.
Most module authors have some sort of maintainer, if structures change and the author can't find the time to type friggin' make and put up new binaries so that it works with the new kernel release, that maintainer is overworked and needs some more assistance.
Finally, I utterly refuse to hold back on a bug/security fix, or other change of similar importance just because it requires changing structure layouts and thus some modules, in fact the issue does not even enter my mind at all.
Remember, the whole win of Linux is that it is free and you are not locked into any of the sorts of binary dependancies wrt. kernel modules and similar, that you would see with some other system. These binary only modules which break every time a kernel structure changes are defeating that purpose, you the user are once again locked into some proprietary technology because the source is unavailable.
---------------------------------------------//// Yow! 11.26 MB/s remote host TCP bandwidth & //// 199 usec remote TCP latency over 100Mb/s //// ethernet. Beat that! //// -----------------------------------------////__________ o David S. Miller, davem@caip.rutgers.edu /_____________/ / // /_/ ><
|  |