On Sat, 2005-07-02 at 14:44 -0400, Lee Revell wrote: > That's one of the many reasons why backwards compatibility is the root > of all evil, because developers are lazy and will code to the least > common denominator. At some point unilateral action is needed. For > example if Microsoft did not EOL old products as aggressively as they > do, half the offices out there would be on Windows 3.1 still...
Don't fix it if it's not broken. Why to rewrite something that already works very well? Rewriting may also introduce new bugs and problems and causes more problems for support. Microsoft API's have loads of backward compatibility load. If you look into their Platform SDK documentation you will notice documentation about differences between different versions of windows. Backwards compatibility goes back for about 10 years to Win95. Insisting for complete switch over to ALSA in a bit more than a year (since 1.0.0) is non-realistic. First of all it has to prove it's API stability first. And there will be partially/completely binary-only OSS drivers as ALSA is GPL and as such, doesn't allow writing partially or completely binary only drivers. This is the current reality. -- Jussi Laako <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
