Alex Keahan wrote: > On Saturday 26 Jun 2004 8:24 pm, Tim Robbins wrote: > >>On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 07:50:38PM +0300, Alex Keahan wrote: >> >>>On Saturday 26 Jun 2004 7:17 pm, Tim Robbins wrote: >>> >>>>On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 05:43:20PM +0200, Cordula's Web wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>- Numerous third-party applications for SCO and Solaris/x86 >>>>>>>>(e.g. backup solutions) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Maple V for Solaris/x86. >>>>>> >>>>>>Is something wrong with Maple for Linux? (Which is up to version >>>>>>9.5, looks as if.) >>>>> >>>>>No license. Gatuitously dropping backward compatibility support for >>>>>commercial software is rude, to say the least... Where was that old >>>>>Solaris/x86 HDD now?. Yuck. :-( >>>> >>>>No, it's realistic. Maintaining SVR4/i386 compatibility is not a good >>>>use of developer resources considering how few people use it. >>> >>>What happened to "if it ain't broken, don't axe it"? >> >>The kernel's internal interfaces change; security bugs are discovered. >>Someone has to keep the code up to date, and the people who end up doing >>the work are *not* the people who advocate keeping the code around. > > > That's a slippery slope and you don't want to go there. > > Maintenance of old code is the price you have to pay when you write new code. > That includes kernel interfaces and security bugs. > > I just hope the removal of IBCS2 is not a political decision to get back at > SCO for their predatory legal tactics. Please please please remove the tinfoil hat. This is _ABSOLUTELY_ not the case. ScottReceived on Sat Jun 26 2004 - 16:12:53 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:59 UTC