[openbeos] Re: binary compat [was Re: Re: BFS and encryption.]
- From: David Sowsy <dsowsy@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:06:21 -0500 (EST)
> whoah Marcus, calm down, stop seeing conspiracys everywhere.
> im not trying to start a flame war, and im sure neither is helmar.
What's wrong with this picture. I'm the one known for flying
off the handle, and here I actually had a bit of restraint.
I must be getting old.
> there have been a few compelling reasons for breaking binary
Compelling...no.
> compatibility mentioned back when R5 was still being worked on be
> be,inc (gcc 3.0, better kernel virtual memory , performance issues,
> etc), so it might not be a bad idea to consider doing so if there are
> compelling reasons for us to do so. yes, it would be a good thing to
> keep compatability if possible, but it should not be so sacred that we
> get into the mess of trying to keep compat with a 20 year old os. ;)
We're not trying to keep compatibility with a 20 year old, us, but
to just run out and immediately break binary compatibility is foolish.
A 6 mos. (minimum) to a one or two year window to 'Phase out'
compatibility is more appropriate.
> Be,inc completly broke binary compat once, and there were minor breaks
> each release.
I'd like to avoid breaks, minor or major in any release.If functionality
deprecates it, phase it out, don't break things.
> second, helmar is on our side. OBOS and beunited both want the same
> thing. do you think linus gets this worried when the ceo of red hat
> makes a suggestion?
I'm going to stay out of the politics on this one.
I Know Better (tm).
Best Regards,
David
. * * * . \|/ * * , . * ' * .
. . * , * --*-- . ` * , . * , .
David Sowsy . /|\ BeOS Rebel and Coder . * .
http://dsowsy.nanorevolution.com . * . * . .
Other related posts:
