On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Derek Glidden wrote:
> It's only an issue with trying to use _precompiled_ kernel modules.
You make it sound like that's some kind of obscure corner case, as opposed
to the *usual* way that people expect to use kernel modules. An ABI is
precisely what I was referring to, I thought it was reasonably obvious.
> There's no need to maintain backward ABI compatibility if they
> determine there is a "better way" of doing things that will only
> require you recompile whatever kernel modules you're already using to
> match up to the current interface.
I disagree, but there's not much point in continuing the discussion if
what I believe to be a bug, you believe to be a feature.
> Also in Linux. Except the kernel developers don't maintain old and
> busted interfaces merely for the sake of backwards combatibility.
Because, of course, anything that's old is by definition busted? How did
backwards compatibility get to be a dirty word?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked
Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages
posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 17:57:12 EDT