Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1999-25,: Re: FENRIS (nwfs) 1.4.2 Source Code Available,

# Re: FENRIS (nwfs) 1.4.2 Source Code Available,

Robert Minichino (linuxkrn@denarius.com)
Wed, 23 Jun 1999 13:31:24 -0400 (EDT)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Stephen C. Tweedie: "Re: File Corruption Bug.. continued"
- Previous message: kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru: "Re: Linux and Network Flight Recorder"

On 22 Jun 1999, david parsons wrote:
> In article <linux.kernel.Pine.GSO.3.96.990622173758.9662H-100000@joni.pasture.net>,
> Robert Minichino <linuxkrn@denarius.com> wrote:
> >It's this ability to make major architectural changes that differentiates
> >free software from commercial software, as the accounting people and the
> >marketing people don't have any leverage as to what goes into the OS. It
> >allows us to stay "pure" in the technical sense and not full of legacy
> >wrappers and useless or over-hyped features. And the one place we REALLY
> >do not want legacy interfaces hanging around is the kernel.
>
> Linux hasn't been around long enough for anyone to call _any_ of the
> published interfaces ``legacy'' After 15 years, maybe, but certainly
> not after 8.
> david parsons \bi/ At 100k code-bloat per major release, there are many worse
> \/ things to worry about than whether it's time to kill
> off the stable interfaces

But in 15 years, those interfaces -will- still be around if they're not
yanked out. Also, much of the "code-bloat" in the major releases is the
addition of drivers and other code that can be conditionally compiled.
However, right now I don't believe there's a CONFIG_VFS. Besides, we have
had at least one thread recently about eliminating the three-argument
mount syscall. And that's one syscall. We usually give ourselves more
flexibility in our internal interfaces.

Backwards-compatibility is good, but most of that doesn't belong in the
(unpageable) kernel.

With a completely open development cycle, and massive amounts of
communication directly to the developers available (such as with
linux-kernel), any changes made to internal kernel interfaces (which are
seldom unnecessary) are open to discussion to any interested party.

In any case, at least with the current "generation" of developers here, I
doubt that any unused interface will stay around too long, nor will there
be many frivolous changes to kernel interfaces. :)

    --
    Robert Minichino
    Denarius Enterprises, Inc.
    http://www.denarius.com/

    -
    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/

- Next message: Stephen C. Tweedie: "Re: File Corruption Bug.. continued"
- Previous message: kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru: "Re: Linux and Network Flight Recorder"