[Info-vax] VMS internals design, was: Re: BASIC and AST routines

[Scott Dorsey]

Johnny Billquist  <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
>
>In a way, David is actually completely incorrect. The internals of Linux 
>is changing all the time. You'll have problems running software more 
>than a year or two old if it's kernel internal, since the APIs inside 
>the kernel constantly is changing.

This is absolutely true, and I am really pissed off about it.

>And why is that? Well, obviously because the people writing them and 
>using them constantly realize ways in which they are not good.

It's because there is change for change's sake.  I don't see dramatic
improvements taking place.

>The various BSD systems would be better arguments here. They actually 
>try to think a little more before doing something, as opposed to Linux, 
>which is really a case of "do first, think later".

Yes, BSD is much more sane in their approach to making updates of any
sort, and has avoided fundamental changes away from the Unix model in
the user space as well as the kernel.

>So, no. The claims Simon make are totally unfounded. However, it is 
>fairly easy to change and evolve in Linux or other Unix like systems, 
>which shows that there is *something* that is right in there. But it's 
>not the internals are well designed, stable, and well working.
>But there is a simplicitly and modularity, which can be traced back to 
>Unix of old, which have been a big reason for the good properties in there.
>But had the Linux kids been doing things from scratch on their own, it 
>would most likely have been a mess that noone would have wanted to touch.

Modularity is a major, major deal here.
--scott

-- 
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."