Distro idea

Brian Hawkins brianhks at activeclickweb.com
Mon Sep 24 14:04:40 MDT 2007

On 9/24/07, Bryan Sant <bryan.sant at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/24/07, Brian Hawkins <brianhks at activeclickweb.com> wrote:
> > This brings up another grip of mine.  Kernel modules that must be
> rebuild
> > whenever the kernel is updated.  Especially when those updates are minor
> > version changes (probably bug fixes).  There are lots of ways to make
> this
> > smoother for end users.  Why are the kernel people living in the dark
> ages
> > on this?
> >
> > Brian
> Because Linus Torvalds does not believe (and strongly defends) that
> binary compatibility is a hindrance not a help.  I TOTALLY disagree.
> I understand that not worrying about maintaining a backwards
> compatible ABI can make life a little easier for kernel developers who
> want to implement new features, but it's a nightmare for end uses who
> just want their kernel modules to work.  This is the main reason I
> have any interest in Solaris/OpenSolaris.  10+ years and they've never
> broken the ABI.  Does anyone know if *BSD has a stable ABI?
> -Bryan

Mr Torvalds views could still be adhered to but in a more user friendly
manner.  Simply specify a versioning system where interface changes are
accounted for in the version number.  That way your module does not have to
be rebuilt until the interface version number changes.  It is a common
practice when using COM or XPCOM.  It works really well.


More information about the PLUG mailing list