Linus Torvalds: Programs exist for their users

  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  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

* 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 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