[2512] in SIPB_Linux_Development
Re: Kernel interface changes (was Re: cdrecord problems on
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH)
Fri Feb 5 17:33:19 1999
To: jalvo@cloud9.net (John Alvord)
Cc: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@MIT.EDU>, Derek Atkins <warlord@MIT.EDU>,
alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, khim@sch57.msk.ru, arvinds@MIT.EDU,
xiphmont@MIT.EDU, linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu, linux-dev@MIT.EDU,
jered@MIT.EDU, nemo@MIT.EDU, cox@idecnet.com
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 05 Feb 1999 08:53:33 GMT."
<36bab0c7.394438@mail.cloud9.net>
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 1999 17:32:14 -0500
From: "Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH" <allbery@kf8nh.apk.net>
In message <36bab0c7.394438@mail.cloud9.net>, John Alvord writes:
+-----
| >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
+--->8
And CMU users --- we use a derivative of Derek's port maintained by Jeff
Hutzelman and others in CMU SCS.
| 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.
+--->8
Keep in mind also: if such a change is *needed* (e.g. security fix or a
POSIX compatibility issue that can't be accomplished any other way), it
should be made. But there should be some thought about whether the change
is really needed now, or if it can wait for the next stable version.
--
brandon s. allbery [os/2][linux][solaris][japh] allbery@kf8nh.apk.net
system administrator [WAY too many hats] allbery@ece.cmu.edu
carnegie mellon / electrical and computer engineering KF8NH
We are Linux. Resistance is an indication that you missed the point.
