On Feb 16, 2004, at 8:35 PM, Andrew M. Hoerter wrote:
>
> 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.
Um? "usual"? Ok. Maybe in the DOS or Windows world... I thought
Linux people kind of understood this whole "open source" thing. You
might have heard about it...
And no, when someone says "The lack of any well-defined
kernel<-->module interface" it's not obvious you mean an ABI; it's
pretty obvious you mean you don't think there's a well-defined
kernel-to-module interface, which is just plain wrong as a quick look
at the kernel source will show.
> 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.
Oh man. That's my favorite cop-out. "You're wrong, so there's no
point in discussing anymore. Hurrah I win! I'm the coolest!"
I agree. No point.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"We all enter this world in the | Support Electronic Freedom
same way: naked; screaming; soaked | http://www.eff.org/
in blood. But if you live your | http://www.anti-dmca.org/
life right, that kind of thing |---------------------------
doesn't have to stop there." -- Dana Gould
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 - 17:57:18 EDT