Ugh!
Chuck Norcutt
> -------Original Message-------
> From: Manuel Viet <oly@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: E3 firmware update AAARRRGGGHHH!!!
> Sent: Feb 01 '08 03:21
>
>
> Le vendredi 1 Février 2008 03:14, Dan Mitchell a écrit :
> > chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > Yes, the OS must absolutely remain backwardly compatible and,
> > >
> > > no, it is not impossible to maintain compatibility while at the
> > > same time offering improvements in function and performance.
> >
> > [ignoring the OS-war issue of "is windows v_n+1 better than windows v_n:
> > ]
> >
> > Ah, the Raymond Chen school of thought -- and while it's possible to
> > do this, you can end up with a lot of things that you might not at first
> > expect:
>
> The only acceptable backward compatibility is source-level compatibility.
> Aiming for binary compatibility is akin to painting a huge target on your
> buttock and running around screaming "kick me !". Eventually, you will be.
>
> The linux kernel api has changed at about every major release since 10 years,
> but nobody cares because nearly all programs are compiled for the new target.
> Binary only programs break, but that's just another incentive to use only
> open source.
>
> R. Chen is just a brilliant hacker, but that's not the right stuff to be a
> good programmer. Of course, given MS policy, he has no choice. But the day
> your bread and butter program will hit a bug caused by a compatibility hack
> inserted to run a silly company's bucket of rotten bits, you will regret that
> *awful* and *unprofessionnal* behaviour from MS.
>
> --
> Manuel Viet
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|