Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > With Greg being a core@ member, and well known for his ability to > talk an acturan megadonkey into taking a stroll after first having > talked its legs off about procedural issues, "Doing something about > vinum" is permanently on the "we should really..." list and everybody > hopes somebody else will "deal with it". Of course, in the end > nobody does.
This isn't a completely fair statement. A lot of people "do something" about vinum: the break it by changing interfaces out from under it, while failing to adequately maintain vinum, or, in fact, other code which uses those same interfaces. There is no such thing as "bit rot"; there is only code that is unmaintained by the people who change interfaces out from under it. FreeBSD lost LFS, XNS, and a lot of other code to people who made interface changes, and then later claimed that the code suffered "bit rot", when in fact it was obsoleted by those people making that claim failing to get general buy-in for their code changes. FWIW, even though I support the idea of dynamically linking everything, the flipping of the switch there followed this same pattern. -- Terry _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"