On 7/7/05, Sunil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > can you please list one such incompatibility?
Shell wise? Not specifically. But I can list a few of *many* issues that I've had over the years when upgrading to newer Linux distributions: * glibc ABI changes breaking my binaries (I won't even talk about the big ugly libc version hell I got stuck in in the late 90's when slackware had to switch to a new major version of libc) * gnu C++ ABI changes breaking my C++ programs * Programs segfaulting when dynamically loading libraries due to dlopen changes * Kernel API changes breaking my video drivers every time a new kernel security update came down I could go on but it's rather pointless. I can't even begin to count how much time I've wasted over the years dealing with ABI issues on the Linux platform. Many times when I complained about I was esentially told to "deal with it", or "that program shouldn't have been doing that in the first place". Which is rather pathetic, considering there has always been very little documentation on exactly what interfaces were considered public and stable. > even if they are there, incompatibilities are a solvable problem. bash can > always be fixed to satisfy the last of the customers who use a feature of > /bin/sh which is not available or doesn't work as desired in bash. Incompatibilities are a solvable problem, yes. But the reality is very few Linux distributions care or are worried about it, so it only reinforces my belief that SUN does the right thing with Solaris. > but to discard something useful for fear of incompatibilities (which are not > even proven), is not a good thing. I never suggested such a thing, and you make it sound as if it's only a possibility when it is already certifiably a reality. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
