Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 5 Nov 2001 16:57:57 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 5 Nov 2001 16:57:47 -0500 Received: from fluent1.pyramid.net ([206.100.220.212]:9006 "EHLO fluent1.pyramid.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 5 Nov 2001 16:57:34 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20011105133211.00bbfed0@10.1.1.42> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 13:43:11 -0800 To: Jonathan Lundell , dalecki@evision.ag, "Albert D. Cahalan" From: Stephen Satchell Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: dot-proc interface [was: /proc stuff] Cc: Jakob =?iso-8859-1?Q?=D8stergaard?= , Alex Bligh - linux-kernel , Alexander Viro , John Levon , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Daniel Phillips , Tim Jansen In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20011105080435.00bc7620@10.1.1.42> <200111042213.fA4MDoI229389@saturn.cs.uml.edu> <4.3.2.7.2.20011105080435.00bc7620@10.1.1.42> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org At 11:58 AM 11/5/01 -0800, Jonathan Lundell wrote: >Either too coarse or too fine, often enough, when we're talking about a >semi-independent module. Consider, though, a more legitimate non-bloating >use of a version field. Rather than try to support all versions, use it to >determine whether the two ends of the communication channel are >compatible, and fail gracefully because of the incompatible version. Tell >the user to update the app, or whatever. I have software out in the field that has been around for more than ten years. Some of it has been maintenance-free (other than the every-other-fortnight bug report that requires a fix) because the underlying operating system didn't change. Some of it has been a nightmare, requiring changes for each OS release and in some cases with each sub-release in order to keep the feature bloat from knocking out the functionality of the program. Unlike many of you, my client base doesn't upgrade on a whim. They stick with what works. That means all my software has to be able to run up and down the version tree, and I have a real problem maintaining parallel versions of code. In Linux, I have people on 2.0.34 still. I have people running some of my software on old versions of Ultrix on hardware that hasn't seen sales for over a decade. I just found out that software I wrote 20 years ago is STILL in use, and customers were inquiring if I was available to make changes! And then there is the problem of who pays for my time to make the app update. I don't charge people for updates as a rule -- that rule may have to change for my Linux apps if this ill-thought-out idea goes into the kernel. I expend enough effort trying to keep up with the crap coming out of Redmond and Cupertino. Apologies for the vent, but I just swatted another bug caused by an undocumented change in Windows 2000 that nailed one of my apps but good. I shudder to think what XP is going to look like when my clients start thinking of "upgrading" their hardware and have XP foisted on them... Satch - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/