> > [...]
> > > Speaking for myself, I'd much rather upgrade the kernel.
> > > XFree86 comes with a collection of libraries, and a library
> > > upgrade often breaks stuff. The kernel is easy to change.
> > Because it doesn't depend on the year's crop on video cards. Put that stuff
> > into the kernel, it will be _much_ worse than upgrading a library.
> Why? With modules, you can swap stuff around as much as you need.
> You just need root privs to do it.
Just that an errant libXwhatever can't screw up your disks, a broken module
certainly can; you are running a _much_ higher risk with modules. Besides,
libs reside in userpsace and can be swapped out, modules reside in RAM.
And finally, being in the kernel doesn't guarantee that version 4.1 will be
compatible with 3.5 either. The reason the kernel _looks_ stable as an
interface to outsiders is that the interface from kernel to userland is
negotiated by libc and system programs. Just look at the Changes file in
your nearest kernel source, and ask yourself why you have to run those
library and program versions... the flamewars about kernel interface
changes have been memorable.
-- Dr. Horst H. von Brand mailto:vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513- 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.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html