OCD programmers and backwards compatibility :-).

[Robin Laing]

Les Mikesell wrote:
> Alan wrote:

>> Perhaps you should read up on the FHS work a bit more before commenting.
>> It draws upon the basic work done in SunOS in particular for making NFS
>> work well, and traditional Unix layout, as well as 4BSD, SVID and other
>> related material. It's also followed pretty closely by a lot more than
>> Linux, and the lack of a "Linux" in the title of the standard is
>> intentional.
>>
>>   
> 
> I've  heard of the project before, but can't put my finger on anything 
> that the
> current version provides that couldn't have been done with backwards
> compatibility as Solaris has done.   Instead we've had a decade of slow
> and painful changes to new and more or less arbitrary locations.  (/opt is
> in one year, /srv the next...)
> 
> ---    Les Mikesell
>      lesmikesell at gmail.com
> 

This is an interesting issue as my upgrade to FC6 pointed out an issue 
with standards.  Where I work, we use some NFS mounts and part of that 
is what is mounted in /opt.  The powers in charge have decided that /opt 
is now a network mount.  Oops, I had installed my local programs into 
/opt as I have done and been told to for ages and even the FHS isn't clear.

As for backward compatibility.  Do we want to be backward capable for 8 
bit, 16 bit or 32 bit?  What about Internationalization?  How about 
Terabyte harddrives and multi-gig files, do we not support these?

At some point in time, the past has to be dumped and we have to move 
forward.  This is as good as time as any.  64 bit processors are almost 
the norm today.  It is time to look at the changes necessary to support 
this but also take the time and make the effort to look at the future 
and plan for 128 bit processors.  Lets not forget the headaches of Y2K 
and all those people and applications that are still stuck in the 32 bit 
world. (Flash).

In this day and age, I can have 6000 or 7000 files in a directory but I 
cannot copy or work on these files due to limits within the kernel from 
days gone bye.

I am not a developer but I keep reading about the headaches that trying 
to maintain backwards compatibility and meeting the needs for the 
future.  As I see it, with Fedora, there is not backwards compatibility 
from last year as FC4 is now toast.

If there is a standard that most of the Linux versions or the key 
versions follow, then the developers don't have to customize their 
application for each distribution.  This isn't an easy undertaking but 
is necessary.

Why do we have standards, to make things work together.  It is that simple.

-- 
Robin Laing