2 Jul
2005
2 Jul
'05
11:04 p.m.
On Sat, 2005-07-02 at 14:44 -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
That's one of the many reasons why backwards
compatibility is the root
of all evil, because developers are lazy and will code to the least
common denominator. At some point unilateral action is needed. For
example if Microsoft did not EOL old products as aggressively as they
do, half the offices out there would be on Windows 3.1 still...
Don't fix it if it's not broken.
Why to rewrite something that already works very well? Rewriting may
also introduce new bugs and problems and causes more problems for
support.
Microsoft API's have loads of backward compatibility load. If you look
into their Platform SDK documentation you will notice documentation
about differences between different versions of windows. Backwards
compatibility goes back for about 10 years to Win95.
Insisting for complete switch over to ALSA in a bit more than a year
(since 1.0.0) is non-realistic. First of all it has to prove it's API
stability first. And there will be partially/completely binary-only OSS
drivers as ALSA is GPL and as such, doesn't allow writing partially or
completely binary only drivers. This is the current reality.
--
Jussi Laako <jussi.laako(a)pp.inet.fi>