lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Feb]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Kernel interface changes (was Re: cdrecord problems on
Date
On Thu, 4 Feb 1999 22:37:06 -0500 (EST), "Theodore Y. Ts'o"
<tytso@MIT.EDU> wrote:

> From: Derek Atkins <warlord@MIT.EDU>
> Date: 04 Feb 1999 22:08:03 -0500
>
> > binary compatibility at application levels. Juggling this kind of
> > stuff to suit IBM's own problems isn't trivial. I think people have
> > a right to expect 2.2.* to run binaries identically (well barring
> > bug fixes meaning they now work right!) but at the module level its
> > far from trivial.
>
> Besides, Alan, it's not just IBM here -- they just happen to be the
> first (transitive property through me). I know of at least a
> half-dozen other hardware vendors who support linux through binary
> kernel modules. I'm probably just the most vocal of the group ;)
>
> FWIW, I don't work for IBM, and I never have. I created Linux-AFS as
> a summer job, and I have maintained it ever since on my own time, as
> an individual. So, for the last four long, hard years I've been
> trying to perform a _FREE_ service to the Linux community, in
> particular everyone in the world who uses IBM's software. Also, in
> case you didn't know, neither IBM nor I made a single penny off of my
> work.
>
>It's important to remember that when we make gratuitous changes that
>seem to have very little benefit besides forcing kernel modules to get
>recompiled, it's not screwing over IBM. IBM/Transarc wasn't making a
>penny from the Linux AFS port. It screwed over MIT users --- MIT users
>who need AFS access so they can access their Project Athena files from
>their Linux boxes in their dorm rooms ---- MIT users who said, "Why is
>it that NetBSD doesn't have these problems in their stable kernel; only
>Linux seems to consistently break things?"
>
>And as a result, I've seen more than a few MIT users decide to give up
>on Linux and move over to NetBSD. I think this is bad, and I'm hoping
>we can take just a little bit more care in the 2.2 series than we did in
>the 2.0 series. Is that really too much to ask?

I suggest we treat binary compatibility problems as bugs which need to
be resolved during the 2.2 lifetime. Even with all care, some changes
will occur because of mistakes... if we cure them, there will be
limited impact to users.

john alvord

John Alvord
Music, Management, Poetry and more...
http://www.candlelist.org/kuilema
Cheap CDs @ http://www.cruzio.com/~billpeet/MusicByCandlelight


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:50    [W:0.553 / U:0.176 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site