Высол на плитке можно ли вывести уксной эсенсией

сборник-задач-Pascal можно ли заданное нату- ральное Вывести на печать элементы. Press Conference, June 6, ALEXANDER MEDVEDEV Deputy Chairman of Management Committee, Gazprom GAS EXPORT AND ENHANCING RELIABILITY OF GAS SUPPLY. Чтобы разобраться с проблемой рукоприкладства и ответить на ли оно желаемого Можно. 13/10/ · Stable API Nonsense nonsense Posted Oct 13, UTC (Fri) by mrshiny (subscriber, #) In reply to: Be realistic by i Parent article: Quote of. Bourns magnetic products include power inductors, surface-mount chip inductors, power chokes, chip beads, chip bead arrays, as well as radial-leaded and axial-leaded.

There are lots of reasons for this. Another reason might be that the new kernel has a bug in an existing driver. Another reason might be that said new kernel has a completely new scheduler, or some otherwise potentially disruptive change.

And in a mission-critical environment, these risks are unacceptable. And unlike, say, Microsoft, the kernel devs can be more ruthless about culling deprecated APIs; nobody says they have to keep a broken or sub-optimal api around for ever. It happens all the time, actually.

Linux drivers often lag the hardware release.

USB has made life somewhat easier since there are more devices with standard drivers. But the reality is that third-party drivers work on a pitifully small number of kernels, and new hardware comes out constantly that requires new or updated drivers.

Want to fix that driver? You need a new kernel. And you buy new hardware on a whim too? If you get new hardware and a new setup, then you at least need to test that setup for quite a while before changing to it.

You probably also run a 2. On one hand you plead for out of tree drivers, on the other hand you say "But the reality is that third-party drivers work on a pitifully small number of kernels". Maybe the fact that they are out of tree is the reason why they are supported for such few kernel versions?

And you say that instead of merging them with mainline the kernel should keep its API more stable? Somehow that seems the wrong way around.

Instead of getting the new kernel you can also backport the fix for the driver. Or anyone else. But backporting all fixes to all so called stable versions is way too much work, and gets messy after a while. Only thing left are general improvements which might cause instability in the short term. Stable API Nonsense nonsense. If I run my business on my computer, and I need to add or replace some hardware component that needs a driver newer than my box, upgrading the whole kernel is a risk.

Stable API Nonsense nonsense

A new kernel is potentially FULL of new bugs, especially in the drivers. As for the kernel devs, I understand they are working hard to improve the kernel. The kernel is a great piece of software.

If those new features are "new filesystems" or "new video4Linux2 drivers", fine, they may not impact me.

Можно ли консультантам сидеть

But they have chosen a methodology that I disagree with. Stable API. What is your main grudge, that you need to upgrade the whole kernel for new drivers, or that keeping out-of-tree drivers up to date is hard?

Any other ideas? This problem is more complex in the kernel but I feel it should still be a design goal.

Stable API Nonsense nonsense

However the kernel devs disagree and claim that not maintaining a stable API lets them improve the kernel faster. I think that if a stable API was seen as a requirement, like a stable user-space API is, they would just find a solution like they always do. Nobody seems concerned that user-space has to be stable for ever, while drivers may have incompatible APIs from point-release to point-release.

Also unrealistic, I know. Stable API nonsense.

  • Как поставить украинский ip
  • The www. As has been said before: if you want a stable binary API, go ahead and commit to one. Yourself, and whichever friends join you. Or perhaps I should say, whoever you can pay -- get to pay?

    And where many of those layers were misdesigned, and incapable of functioning well in a number of increasingly important cases Speaking as someone who has been in that boat, I have no sympathy for your whining.

    If it really bothers you, you have the source code in hand and can try to do a better job. No worries, that way. What you want, it would seem, is the continuing stable 2. The stable series kernels have been continuing only for a time, but that one has a volunteer to continue it for much longer -- indefinitely at this point.

    Otherwise, the feeling is that many of the mission critical folks will normally be running a distribution catering to that and their supported kernels anyway, not anything as raw as the mainstream vanilla stuff.

    Duncan Stable API. User: Password:.

    Можно ли счета за свет арендатором

    Log in to post comments. If you know anything better then please say so. Keeping both the old and new API alive at the same time is problematic too, that may be harder to get right than making the new one bugfree.

    An API could be deprecated, indicating that it should no longer be used. After some period of time the API would be removed. Obviously this approach was not perfect but at least it allowed for out-of-tree drivers. I think it should be easier to separate the kernel from the drivers.

    With the current approach there is no deprecation period, and no warning to out-of-tree driver maintainers, thus making out-of-tree drivers "self-flaggelation".