Quoth David Sowsy: >> 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. Wouldn't it be possible to provide people with backwards compatibility for older binary formats? I know netbsd does this, and even has extended it to linux/freebsd/solaris/etc compatibility.. Of course, in order to have a dynamically linked executable run, you have to have the old libraries around someplace, but that's not much of a loss for the usability gain, imho.