Robert Milkowski wrote: > Peter Memishian wrote: >> If I could go back in time to 1991, I'd love to change that. In the >> meantime, we have built up 18+ years of software that may rely on the >> documented set of characters, so expanding it comes with risk of >> breaking that software. >> > Perhaps user should be warned then when creating such data links instead > of completely forbiding user to do so? Or maybe a future Solaris 10 > branded zone should check for it and issue a warning?
What I think you're missing here is that merely warning users is not enough, if you're worried about future projects. Any future project that deals with interface names will be *forced* to deal with the fact that these strange characters were allowed to be used, no matter how "discouraged" they might be. The alternative is to ask project designers to build applications that they _know_ will fail. Under what circumstances is that really the right answer? > At the same time I understand that there must be a balance so things > won't get too complicated for other projects. That's it exactly. On the one hand, we have completely pointless flexibility. On the other, we have the unknowns of future projects and existing third-party dependent applications. Which one is worth more? > I think that one of the things people like about Linux is the freedome > they get with it. You've got the same freedom and the same consequences here. As with Linux, you're free to change the source and make it do whatever you want. > recommendation on how to use things. For some people backward > compatibility is paramount for others it almost doesn't matter at all - > imho the best way is to make both of them happy by providing the > flexibility and documentation warning about consequences. Still it > doesn't mean a total freedom like an example in FreeBSD where it allows > characters which break standard system rc scripts - that of course is > wrong. I don't think it's that simple. The freedom that's being taken doesn't have effects that are easily or reasonably predictable by those who are taking the chances (in other words: they can't really know that it "doesn't matter" unless they're able to predict the future), and it constrains those who are trying to make the system work better. I know it seems like a trivial thing, but it's these sorts of trivial things that add up to make a system either stable over time or a crime scene. -- James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W <carlsonj at workingcode.com>
