> Your points are well taken but you must consider the reality of the
> situation also. I can't speak for the administators at MIT, but I would not
> officially support any user (student or faculty) that was still using 0.98
> or some other ancient version of Linux. If they wanted to use it then fine,
> but don't expect support for crusty software. Take some examples from other
> "network" type OS's. Novell, know anyone running 2.15 anymore? Does Novell
> even support that, let alone network administrators all over the world?
> What about Windows 2.0 (or even 3.11 for that matter)? Is that "officially"
> supported? Do you know anyone in their right mind that would "officially"
> support Windows 3.1, 3.11, 95, 98, NT3.51, AND NT4.0 concurently (assuming
> it's a Microsoft shop)? Even Sun has major compatability issues with SunOS
> 4.x/5.x (SunOS/Solaris).
Things change, and often for good reason. But the thing Monty was
complaining about (a change in the CDROM ioctl interface, IIRC) did in
fact appear to be the result of carelessness. Breaking an interface
should require _a really good reason_ and alternative should be
investigated. In this case, a new ioctl would have done the trick just
fine.
-- "Love the dolphins," she advised him. "Write by W.A.S.T.E.."
- 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/