> >> Guys, most people use libc5 or glibc 2.0.x if they've installed from a
> >> distribution. I'm running Redhat 5.0, which uses glibc 2.0.5, so if
> >> Star Office installs a newer glibc, no big deal. It's when people are
> >> at the leading edge that these kind of bugs "byte" them.
> >In other words, never upgrade because some poorly written program depends
> >on undocumented functions and hence doesn't work with a new and better
> >system? This isn't windows, its linux. We move to better things even if
> >it breaks things that _don't_ depend on undocumented features.
> And this is different from Windows in what way? I'm sure that MS considers
> their incompatable upgrades to be better things too.
You don't have to sign NDAs to get the API and change your existing apps so
that they fit.
You don't have to PAY for the API.
You don't actually HAVE to update because suddenly every single Linux
support company says "oh, we don't support glibc-2.0.6 any more, you'll have
to BUY the update."
If you can upgrade for free, and no-one hides anything, I think the above
is quite acceptable. Not too often, though.
--
_ciao, Jens_______________________________ http://www.pinguin.conetix.de
cat /dev/boiler/water | tea | sieve > /cup
mount -t hdev /dev/human/mouth01 /mouth ; cat /cup >/mouth/gulp
-
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/