>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. Theoretically, I think that it is. Is the trouble worth the result? All depends on the amount of work and the amount of gain. Gain, I think, would be pretty high. Trouble is something only a few people in the know could guesstimate.