In the software world, most of what we build today will end up in a landfill
within 3 years, so the word "legacy" does apply, for example, 1.0 is already
"legacy" Linux. Anyway, back to work, don't want Alan to get mad at me for
not having the 2.0.36 Stock build finished by today!!!
Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Minichino <linuxkrn@denarius.com>
To: <linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 1999 11:31 AM
Subject: Re: FENRIS (nwfs) 1.4.2 Source Code Available,
> On 22 Jun 1999, david parsons wrote:
> > In article
<linux.kernel.Pine.GSO.3.96.990622173758.9662H-100000@joni.pasture.net>,
> > Robert Minichino <linuxkrn@denarius.com> wrote:
> > >It's this ability to make major architectural changes that
differentiates
> > >free software from commercial software, as the accounting people and
the
> > >marketing people don't have any leverage as to what goes into the OS.
It
> > >allows us to stay "pure" in the technical sense and not full of legacy
> > >wrappers and useless or over-hyped features. And the one place we
REALLY
> > >do not want legacy interfaces hanging around is the kernel.
> >
> > Linux hasn't been around long enough for anyone to call _any_ of the
> > published interfaces ``legacy'' After 15 years, maybe, but certainly
> > not after 8.
> > david parsons \bi/ At 100k code-bloat per major release, there are
many worse
> > \/ things to worry about than whether it's time
to kill
> > off the stable interfaces
>
> But in 15 years, those interfaces -will- still be around if they're not
> yanked out. Also, much of the "code-bloat" in the major releases is the
> addition of drivers and other code that can be conditionally compiled.
> However, right now I don't believe there's a CONFIG_VFS. Besides, we have
> had at least one thread recently about eliminating the three-argument
> mount syscall. And that's one syscall. We usually give ourselves more
> flexibility in our internal interfaces.
>
> Backwards-compatibility is good, but most of that doesn't belong in the
> (unpageable) kernel.
>
> With a completely open development cycle, and massive amounts of
> communication directly to the developers available (such as with
> linux-kernel), any changes made to internal kernel interfaces (which are
> seldom unnecessary) are open to discussion to any interested party.
>
> In any case, at least with the current "generation" of developers here, I
> doubt that any unused interface will stay around too long, nor will there
> be many frivolous changes to kernel interfaces. :)
>
> --
> Robert Minichino
> Denarius Enterprises, Inc.
> http://www.denarius.com/
>
>
> -
> 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/
>
-
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/