Keith M Wesolowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 03:48:52AM -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
> > Why does it have to be 100% compatible? That is a serious question.
> > What breaks so bad that not having access to the source is considered
> > a viable solution?
>
> 100% compatibility is not always required. Sometimes, no compatibility is
> required at all. See the interface stability taxonomy in chapter 7 of the
> developer's reference. ksh, unfortunately, is Stable.
What do you do if you have an old car that you love and it turns out that
this is the last of it's sort.
Now you have a hard crash with it and it cannot be repaired.
What do you do? Will you say: "Allother other cars are incompatible",
or will you say: "I need to buy a new car because I need one"?
With OpenSolaris, we are in the situation that we lost our car (ksh) and need
to replace it. The only option currently is ksh93. Under such circumstances
it does not help to tell other people "ksh, unfortunately, is Stable".
Ksh88 is just not available and we need to use ksh93.
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
