On 7/27/05, Helmar Wodtke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > discussing about interfaces and standards is a good > > thing, standards are > > a good thing, the hack&slay > > mentality often shown in the so-called "open source > > community" is not. > > Try to understand it from a different view: the source is not available, so > there is no reason to keep compatiblity - it's impossible. See eg. > Ghostscript - it's a Postscript interpreter that's now very "mature". But it > still is not 100% compatible to the Adobe-Postscript interpreter - and even > if some people that made Ghostscript where consulted for PDF specifications, > Ghostscript still has some incompatiblities with PDF files. > > The only possible solutions are: > a) have original source code > b) have the people that coded the original. > > My personal opinion is that a) is the safer way.
"a)" may be the safer way but is not always necessary. Your example of Postscript interpreter doesn't fit nearly as well because you're talking about (as far as I know) is an undcoumented proprietary file format, whereas ksh88 is a well-documented shell with all or some of the original authors still alive. Not only that, you assume that because the source is not available that questions cannot be asked of people that do have access to the source. The point everyone is trying to make is that it is possible to create a compatible equivalent if the "footwork" is done upfront, the fine details can be sorted out with people who were the authors (possibly) or those who have access the source. While they can't tell you what the source says exactly, they could answer specific behaviour questions. So, I disagree, it is not impossible, it is quite possible. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
