Re: Kernel interface changes (was Re: cdrecord problems on

Edwin Foo (efoo@MIT.EDU)
Thu, 04 Feb 1999 09:18:40 -0500

In defense of yodaiken@chelm.cs.nmt.edu (I think I've lost the original
email with the realname attached), he has already realized in private mail
that he accidentally misread my message to construe that I was talking
about 2.0->2.2, not 2.0.n to 2.0.n+1 like I meant it to say. So, we don't
need to keep harping on that - it was an honest mistake.

-Edwin

At 09:11 AM 2/4/99 EST, Kev wrote:
>
>> > Unfortunately, I think it is a problem you have to take up and deal with.
>> > Recompiling sources for entire server setups in a live production
>>
>> So you use the 2.0 version until a 2.2 version stabilizes. The problem
>> really is that the Linux unreliable development kernel is so good that
>> people actually want to run production systems on it, and then complain
when
>> it does not stay stable.
>
>we're not talking about going from 2.0 to 2.2; we're talking about going
>from 2.0.33 to 2.0.34. In the past, many changes have been made which
>have broken binary compatibility without warning and without good reason.
>*THIS MUST NOT CONTINUE HAPPENING* if Linux expects to get anywhere.
>--
>Kevin L. Mitchell <klmitch@mit.edu>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edwin Foo | MIT Computer Science - BS '98, MEng. '99
efoo@mit.edu | Compaq Computer Corp. - Cambridge Research Lab
(617) 225-9715 | MIT Residential Computing Consultant (RCC) Developer
| MIT 6.270 - http://web.mit.edu/6.270
"Love must be sincere; Hate what is evil; cling to what is good."
http://hesed.mit.edu/~efoo - Romans 12:9 <><
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/