Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 15th Jan 2007 11:25 UTC
Ian Murdock blogs about the importance of backward compatibility. "Yes, it's hard, particularly in the Linux world, because there are thousands of developers building the components that make up the platform, and it just takes one to break compatibility and make our lives difficult. Even worse, the idea of keeping extraneous stuff around for the long term 'just' for the sake of compatibility is anathema to most engineers. Elegance of design is a much higher calling than the pedestrian task of making sure things don't break. Why is backward compatibility important?"
Thread beginning with comment 201926
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-08-15
>> It's called Windows XP x64! That's right the 64bit kernel of WindowsXP is built off the W2k3 sourcebase and not the 32bit XP sourcebase. <<
Wow someone's missing a point here. He was talking about installing a kernel of one kerneltree in a system of another kerneltree. One can easily port the XP stuff to the W2k3 kernel and then call it windows XP-64 (and even that took quite a while).
Let's try anew: try to install a Win 2k3 kernel on a windows vista system.
Member since:2005-07-06
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2006-01-12
>>Try installing a win 2k3 kernel in a XP box! <<
It's called Windows XP x64! That's right the 64bit kernel of WindowsXP is built off the W2k3 sourcebase and not the 32bit XP sourcebase.