From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264916AbUFRB3U (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jun 2004 21:29:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264915AbUFRB3U (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jun 2004 21:29:20 -0400 Received: from imo-d02.mx.aol.com ([205.188.157.34]:53391 "EHLO imo-d02.mx.aol.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264916AbUFRB3S (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jun 2004 21:29:18 -0400 Message-ID: <40D24564.8040307@netscape.net> Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 21:29:08 -0400 From: "Nicholas S. Wourms" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 MultiZilla/1.6.4.0b X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Morton CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Stop the Linux kernel madness References: <40D232AD.4020708@opensound.com> <20040617173953.39eae56c.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20040617173953.39eae56c.akpm@osdl.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.76.8.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AOL-IP: 130.127.121.131 X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > b) They shipped the kitchen sink with 2.4 and their customers still want > to wash the dishes in 2.6. Heh, very funny. Seriously, though, one "kitchen sink" feature that they had been shipping in 2.4 was iBCS. Given the recent revival in UFS1/2 FS support, it really would be "nice to see" the iBCS binary compatibility code revived and merged into 2.6. I'm sure that people in the scientific community would really appreciate this since there are still many new and legacy apps which were/are only for solaris/x86 and/or sco/x86. I know I'm sure to invite flames for this one, but serious thought should be given to re-merging the khttpd using Ingo Molnar's tux code. The khttpd been part of the kernel for such a long time and since it now works in 2.6 again, why not re-instate it? FWICT, it is "fairly" self-contained, so the overall impact on existing code should be minimal. Cheers, Nicholas