[2503] in SIPB_Linux_Development
Re: Kernel interface changes (was Re: cdrecord problems on
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Arvind Sankar)
Thu Feb 4 22:57:59 1999
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 22:57:40 -0500
From: Arvind Sankar <arvinds@MIT.EDU>
To: Khimenko Victor <khim@sch57.msk.ru>
Cc: xiphmont@MIT.EDU, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, warlord@MIT.EDU,
linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu, linux-dev@MIT.EDU, jered@MIT.EDU,
nemo@MIT.EDU, cox@idecnet.com
Reply-To: Arvind Sankar <arvinds@MIT.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.96.990205034751.32699A-100000@shell.sch57.msk.ru>; from Khimenko Victor on Fri, Feb 05, 1999 at 03:50:38AM +0300
On Fri, Feb 05, 1999 at 03:50:38AM +0300, Khimenko Victor wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, Arvind Sankar wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 04, 1999 at 10:17:54PM +0300, Khimenko Victor wrote:
> > > In <199902041856.NAA00105@cutter-john.MIT.EDU> Monty (xiphmont@mit.edu) wrote:
> > >
> > > M> No more cc:s to cdwrite or linux-scsi, please.
> > >
> > > >>> 2.2 is supposed to _be_ stable, not gradually stabilize. That's what
> > > >>> 2.1/2.3 are for.
> > > >>
> > > >>Unfortunatelly it's not possible. Joe average will not even try "development"
> > > >>kernel and some errors could not be found without A LOT OF users.
> > >
> > > M> So fix the bugs. Don't try to roll in new features or optimizations.
> > > M> One specific trouble I was talking about happened when 2.1 lasted long
> > > M> enough that developers decided to roll 2.1 features back into 2.0. Of
> > > M> *course* you're going to miss something!
> > >
> > > You could not get 100% compatibility with ANY change (even if you'll just fix
> > > bug this will probably broke someone program! that's why quite a few well-known
> > > bugs in Windows could not be fixed)...
> >
> > I assume this is a joke...
> >
> Unfortunatelly not. I'm could kill ANY WindowsNT system without Admin or
> even Power User access just by doing some nasty things with DDE. Why it's
> not fixed ? "Oh, this will break so many programs..."
>
bum. sorry. I wasn't clear. That's not what I meant. I meant that any program
which _depends_ on a bug deserves to break, and anybody who thinks otherwise is
nuts. Good software works _around_ bugs, it doesn't use them. When u fix the
bug, the software doesn't break. Whole point of being open: you know what the
guys meant to do, even if they didn't do it right.
-- arvind
