> binary compatibility at application levels. Juggling this kind of
> stuff to suit IBM's own problems isn't trivial. I think people have
> a right to expect 2.2.* to run binaries identically (well barring
> bug fixes meaning they now work right!) but at the module level its
> far from trivial.
Besides, Alan, it's not just IBM here -- they just happen to be the
first (transitive property through me). I know of at least a
half-dozen other hardware vendors who support linux through binary
kernel modules. I'm probably just the most vocal of the group ;)
FWIW, I don't work for IBM, and I never have. I created Linux-AFS as
a summer job, and I have maintained it ever since on my own time, as
an individual. So, for the last four long, hard years I've been
trying to perform a _FREE_ service to the Linux community, in
particular everyone in the world who uses IBM's software. Also, in
case you didn't know, neither IBM nor I made a single penny off of my
work.
It's important to remember that when we make gratuitous changes that
seem to have very little benefit besides forcing kernel modules to get
recompiled, it's not screwing over IBM. IBM/Transarc wasn't making a
penny from the Linux AFS port. It screwed over MIT users --- MIT users
who need AFS access so they can access their Project Athena files from
their Linux boxes in their dorm rooms ---- MIT users who said, "Why is
it that NetBSD doesn't have these problems in their stable kernel; only
Linux seems to consistently break things?"
And as a result, I've seen more than a few MIT users decide to give up
on Linux and move over to NetBSD. I think this is bad, and I'm hoping
we can take just a little bit more care in the 2.2 series than we did in
the 2.0 series. Is that really too much to ask?
- Ted
-
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/