ron minnich wrote: > same applies to new software applied to antiques. While you are correct for some software and some antiques I find this premise completely unacceptable. This attitude may be convenient for developers but it only further normalizes planned obsolecense. Not OK!
Software can make it a high priority to be compatible. Windows is a great example of that, and I'm sure that backwards compatibility (has) contributes significantly to its success. Hardware is no different and can of course also make it a priority to be backwards compatible. If we consider the x86 instruction set in isolation then that's another great example. I don't see this problem as lack of compatibility but more as lack of transparency, openness and/or collaboration - those are the ingredients for a general hardware initialization software without all the ridiculous fights that coreboot must endure to this day. //Peter _______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org
