jamal writes: > So the Linux decision was infact a very good one. An award of some form > is in order.
Maybe Microsoft will be inspired to do things the same way: it can change its implementations in order to break 10% of all sites around the world, and when anyone complains, it can say that it was forcing those sites to move to more modern software, and that it really deserves an award in consequence. > One could argue that at the end a better network is one with less broken > devices; and that a better interop really means conformance as opposed > to adaptation to broken implementations. This conflicts with Linux having a broken implementation (and yes, it is broken, because it is not interoperatively better). > The main contention it seems is the definition of "reserved". The main contention seems to be the system with the problem. If it's Linux, it's not a bug, it's feature. If it's Microsoft, it's not a feature, it's a bug.
