4 ms·

The site is down, the content is (at least for me) not available in google cache, so I suppose it's the same for others as well. And yet it's the top story on

by route66 15y ago

The site is down, the content is (at least for me) not available in google cache, so I suppose it's the same for others as well. And yet it's the top story on HN right now. When do we start giving tl;dr's for the headlines? [EDIT] managed to find a mirror. This mail in the thread gives a bit more context: http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1203.1/00446.html http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1203.1/00446....

ElliotH 15y ago
Up here (and since you posted 0minutes ago, I imagine a refresh or two would fix it for you)
Father 15y ago
What it reads: * From Linus Torvalds <> Date Thu, 8 Mar 2012 15:40:26 -0800 Subject Re: [PATCH] sysfs: Optionally count subdirectories to support buggy applications On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote: > > Keeping compatibility is easy enough that it looks like it is worth > doing, but maintaining 30+ years of backwards compatibility Stop right there. This is not about some arbitrary "30-year backwards compatibility". This is about your patch BREAKING EXISTING BINARIES. So stop the f&^ing around already. The patch was shown to be broken, stop making excuses, and stop blathering. End of story. Binary compatibility is more important than any* of your patches. If you continue to argue anything else or making excuses, I'm going to ask people to just ignore your patches entirely. Seriously. Binary compatibility is so important that I do not want to have anything to do with kernel developers who don't understand that importance. If you continue to pooh-pooh the issue, you only show yourself to be unreliable. Don't do it. Dammit, I'm continually surprised by the idiots out there that don't understand that binary compatibility is one of the absolute top priorities. The only reason for an OS kernel existing in the first place is to serve user-space. The kernel has no relevance on its own. Breaking existing binaries - and then not acknowledging how horribly bad that was - is just about the worst offense any kernel developer can do. Because that shows that they don't understand what the whole point of the kernel was after all. We're not masturbating around with some research project. We never were. Even when Linux was young, the whole and only point was to make a usable system. It's why it's not some crazy drug-induced microkernel or other random crazy thing. Really. Linus
yread 15y ago
you can enable showdead, bravura posted the whole content, but the comment is dead. Not sure why edit: also ttt_ and father posted it and got auto killed.
Natsu 15y ago
There's not even that much to TL;DR. Someone proposed a patch that would break binary compatibility. There was some argument about having to keep "30+ years of backwards compatibility." Linus said the whole thing was dumb, the patch wasn't worth it, and that programs exist for users, so we can't just break things for the hell of it and expect people to use Linux.

by route66 15y ago

ElliotH 15y ago

Up here (and since you posted 0minutes ago, I imagine a refresh or two would fix it for you)

Father 15y ago

What it reads: * From Linus Torvalds <> Date Thu, 8 Mar 2012 15:40:26 -0800 Subject Re: [PATCH] sysfs: Optionally count subdirectories to support buggy applications On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote: > > Keeping compatibility is easy enough that it looks like it is worth > doing, but maintaining 30+ years of backwards compatibility Stop right there. This is not about some arbitrary "30-year backwards compatibility". This is about your patch BREAKING EXISTING BINARIES. So stop the f&^ing around already. The patch was shown to be broken, stop making excuses, and stop blathering. End of story. Binary compatibility is more important than any* of your patches. If you continue to argue anything else or making excuses, I'm going to ask people to just ignore your patches entirely. Seriously. Binary compatibility is so important that I do not want to have anything to do with kernel developers who don't understand that importance. If you continue to pooh-pooh the issue, you only show yourself to be unreliable. Don't do it. Dammit, I'm continually surprised by the idiots out there that don't understand that binary compatibility is one of the absolute top priorities. The only reason for an OS kernel existing in the first place is to serve user-space. The kernel has no relevance on its own. Breaking existing binaries - and then not acknowledging how horribly bad that was - is just about the worst offense any kernel developer can do. Because that shows that they don't understand what the whole point of the kernel was after all. We're not masturbating around with some research project. We never were. Even when Linux was young, the whole and only point was to make a usable system. It's why it's not some crazy drug-induced microkernel or other random crazy thing. Really. Linus

yread 15y ago

you can enable showdead, bravura posted the whole content, but the comment is dead. Not sure why edit: also ttt_ and father posted it and got auto killed.

Natsu 15y ago

There's not even that much to TL;DR. Someone proposed a patch that would break binary compatibility. There was some argument about having to keep "30+ years of backwards compatibility." Linus said the whole thing was dumb, the patch wasn't worth it, and that programs exist for users, so we can't just break things for the hell of it and expect people to use Linux.