On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, Frank Mayhar wrote:

> 1. 4.0 hasn't been out long enough for there to be any significant support
>    for it in proprietary systems.  It takes more lead time than this.

So make the change and release it as FreeBSD5. Save the big changes for 
something called FreeBSd6 or FreeBSD2000, or ...
The vendors can simply say "we don't support" FreeBSD4.
The confusion factor for users is real. This module works with FreeBSD4 
kernels, but only those after April 26, 2000 just doesn't "sell".

> 2. Significant enhancements are often worth the price
I'm not against "progress". It's just how it gets packaged.

>> 3. Any proprietary module that depends so heavily upon kernel internals is,
>    IMNSHO, broken by definition.  If one is writing a proprietary module,
>    particularly for an open-source system, one should write to the lowest
>    common denominator and _not_ to internal interfaces that could change
>    out from under you at any moment.
As I understand it, it's not a fundamental change to the interface that 
"bites". A simple recompile will "fix" most modules. Every module that 
exchanges information with the kernel depends on its interfaces.

> 4. No system, released or otherwise, is a "stone house."  At best it's a
>    wooden house (to use your terminology), since defect fixes might require
>    changes to internal interfaces.  I know, I do this for a living.
I did too. Only we were never so casual about changing interfaces after a 

> 5. The SMP stuff is about _internal_ interfaces, not external ones.
Internal vs External is administrative. Any time one organization provides
one piece and another provides the other, the interface is, by definition, 
external. Loadable kernel modules can come for multiple sources. Therefore 
the interface to them is external.

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to