[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: Path to kmods
der mouse wrote:
> The first example that comes to mind? In 2.0, 1.x executables that
> depended on executing out of the stack broke. On purpose.
> Or, at least, non-executable stack was on purpose; it's possible that
> the failure to provide backward compatability was a result of someone
> not thinking of something rather than conscious choice. Certainly
> nobody seemed too concerned about the lack of compatability when I
> tracked it down, though.
Why didn't you object removal of sh5 and pc532?
Consider tradeoff if you can't help us or yourself.
We can't be so perfect.
Now you seems a critic, not a developer or user.
What's your purpose on this thread?
You are always beating changes you don't like
without positive proposal or actual work.
Main Index |
Thread Index |