On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 19:00:09 -0400 Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You do realize that freezing the ABI would amount to freezing kernel > development, due to the commitment not to break old binary drivers? > > Your scheme would have made it impossible to implement suspend/resume or > realtime preemption due to backwards compatibility requirements. > > Lee > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Alsa-user mailing list > Alsa-user@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-user > No, I don't. I realize that there were Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows NT, Windows 2000, Windows XP. Or Solaris 4..10. Or whatever. That is, from time to time binary interface specs get updated as necessary. Now, symmetrically, do you realize that refusal to stabilize ABI indicates failure first to think and then to do ? That is, Linux was not the first to implement suspend/resume, so not taking this into account indicates a flaw/failure in the first place. _______________________________________________ Alsa-user mailing list Alsa-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-user
