Actually you are wrong. At least one other person had been confused by this legacy code.
It also takes longer to build and can't be tested really. The very size and complexity of our tree is its own kind of pain. Reducing that helps. But I withdraw this proposal as well as pretty much every other proposal I've made for illumos in the past year. I realize that my vision for illumos is not shared by everyone here and that means it will never be accepted into upstream. I think I just have to accept that and move forward on my path independently I will write up a document describing my vision and plans for illumos core and then I will extend an invitation for those who want to join me to do so. My guess is that there will be some and maybe running two different projects will actually be for the greater good. We will see. Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 9, 2014, at 10:47 AM, Keith Wesolowski via illumos-developer > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 09:28:20AM +0200, Toomas Soome via illumos-developer >> wrote: >> >> So it seems all this os is about running 20 years old stuff, while others >> are running modern things. really, no wonder why linux is killing everything >> else - people need to go on, not to be stuck with sunos 4. > > You're not "stuck with sunos 4". I can't even tell if you're trolling; > you're smart enough to know better. Nothing you build today will use > this functionality. In fact, nothing you build today *can* use it. And > the functionality that today's software uses is not in any way being > held back by the existence of this legacy support code. Some people > might want you to imagine that it is, but it isn't. It's a red herring. > >> this compatibility has become trap for illumos - and it really did not >> happen today. > > That's completely false. There is no trap. Unless you have a SunOS 4.x > binary you wish to run, you will never be affected by this code in any > way. And if you do, then it provides you the benefit of being able to > run it. That's all. It's not in your way. It's not holding up > "modernisation" work. It's not harming illumos at all, except when > people demand that we remove perfectly good code that's harming no one > and then everyone has to waste their weekend explaining why that's a > waste of time that helps no one and potentially does harm. > > The best way to harm illumos is to waste our time. It's the people > insisting that this code be removed that are doing the harm, not the > presence of the code. I'd bet you and half the other contributors to > this thread didn't even know this code existed until now, and for good > reason: it's never been in your way and never will. > > > ------------------------------------------- > illumos-developer > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/182179/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/182179/21239177-3604570e > Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ------------------------------------------- illumos-discuss Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/182180/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/182180/21175430-2e6923be Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21175430&id_secret=21175430-6a77cda4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
