Unix is dead. Long live Unix!
Don't expect to see any more big AIX news. This means the last Unix
left is... Linux
On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 18:15:12 +0000, Ben Collver wrote:
Unix is dead. Long live Unix!
Don't expect to see any more big AIX news. This means the last Unix
left is... Linux
macOS is a certified UNIX.
And Linux isn't.
It's the end of an era. As The Reg covered last week, IBM has
transferred development of AIX to India. Why should IBM pay for an
expensive US-based team to maintain its own proprietary flavor of
official Unix when it paid 34 billion bucks for its own FOSS flavor
in Red Hat?
Within Oracle, Solaris is in maintenance mode. Almost exactly six
year ago, we reported that the next major release, Solaris 12, had disappeared from Oracle's roadmap.
HPE's HP-UX is also in maintenance mode because there's no new
hardware to run it on. Itanium really is dead now and at the end
that's all HP-UX could run on. It's over a decade since we reported
that HP investigated but canceled an effort to port it to x86-64.
Am 17.01.2023 um 18:15:12 Uhr schrieb Ben Collver:
It's the end of an era. As The Reg covered last week, IBM has
transferred development of AIX to India. Why should IBM pay for an
expensive US-based team to maintain its own proprietary flavor of
official Unix when it paid 34 billion bucks for its own FOSS flavor
in Red Hat?
For me it seems that IBM never wanted AIX to grow - they only support
that on special hardware. Most Linux distributions run on most hardware
- and are free of charge.
Within Oracle, Solaris is in maintenance mode. Almost exactly six
year ago, we reported that the next major release, Solaris 12, had
disappeared from Oracle's roadmap.
Solaris 11.4 has been released in 2018, in 2017 they laid off many
employees developing it.
HPE's HP-UX is also in maintenance mode because there's no new
hardware to run it on. Itanium really is dead now and at the end
that's all HP-UX could run on. It's over a decade since we reported
that HP investigated but canceled an effort to port it to x86-64.
It seems they want it to die.
They don't want people to download it without creating an Oracle
account.
I have never used a real UNIX - I never managed to get one.
Maybe the reason is that the time of UNIX is over - I started with
computers in ~2010 and with Linux in 2015 (in the age of 14).
We still have some AIX machines at work, but old-ass versions and we
want to switch them off due to security reasons.
It seems to me like there might be two different definitions of
"Unix" at work here.
On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 18:15:12 +0000, Ben Collver wrote:
Unix is dead. Long live Unix!
Don't expect to see any more big AIX news. This means the last Unix
left is... Linux
macOS is a certified UNIX.
And Linux isn't.
There is UNIX and UNIX-like. Some people confuse them.
Unix is dead. Long live Unix!
Don't expect to see any more big AIX news. This means the last Unix
left is... Linux
Liam Proven
Tue 17 Jan 2023
It's the end of an era. As The Reg covered last week, IBM has
transferred development of AIX to India. Why should IBM pay for an
expensive US-based team to maintain its own proprietary flavor of
official Unix when it paid 34 billion bucks for its own FOSS flavor
in Red Hat?
Here at The Reg FOSS desk, we've felt this was coming ever since we
reported that Big Blue was launching new POWER servers which didn't
support AIX--already nearly eight years ago. Even if it was visibly
coming over the horizon, this is a significant event: AIX is the last proprietary Unix which was in active development, and constitutes
four of the 10 entries in the official Open Group list.
Within Oracle, Solaris is in maintenance mode. Almost exactly six
year ago, we reported that the next major release, Solaris 12, had disappeared from Oracle's roadmap. HPE's HP-UX is also in
maintenance mode because there's no new hardware to run it on.
Itanium really is dead now and at the end that's all HP-UX could run
on. It's over a decade since we reported that HP investigated but
canceled an effort to port it to x86-64.
The last incarnation of the SCO Group, Xinuos, is still around and
offers not one but two proprietary UNIX variants: SCO OpenServer,
descended from SCO Xenix, and UnixWare, descended from Novell's Unix.
We note that OpenServer 10, a more modern OS based on FreeBSD 10,
has disappeared from Xinuos's homepage. It's worth pointing out that
the SCO Group was the company formerly known as Caldera, and isn't
the same SCO as the Santa Cruz Operation which co-created Xenix with Microsoft in the 1980s.
There used to be two Chinese Linux distros which had passed the Open
Group's testing and could use the Unix trademark: Inspur K/UX and
Huawei EulerOS. Both companies have let the rather expensive
trademark lapse, though. But the important detail here is that Linux
passed and was certified as a UNIX (tm). And it wasn't just one
distro, although both were CentOS Linux derivatives. We suspect that
any Linux would breeze through because several many un-Unix-like OSes
have passed before.
Other OSes have passed or probably easily would, though. IBM's z/OS
is alive and well: version 2.5 came out in 2021 and in 2022 Big Blue
started offering cloud instances. z/OS has a Unix-compatible
environment which has passed the compatibility tests so officially,
it's a UNIX (tm), even if that wasn't its original native API.
The "open" in the name "OpenVMS" originally referred to the POSIX compatibility it gained with version 5, way back in 1991, and was
first applied to the new version for DEC's Alpha CPUs. Last year VMS
Software released version 9.2 for x86-64 hypervisors (and a single
supported box, HPE's DL380).
Ever since Windows NT in 1993, Windows has had a POSIX environment.
Now, with WSL, it arguably has two of them, and we suspect that if
Microsoft were so inclined, it could have Windows certified as an
official Unix-compatible OS.
In our recent story on Beta 4 of Haiku, we said it wasn't really a
Unix. As you can see, there's an editor's note attached to the end
of the story explaining why.
We had heard from Haiku's primary full-time developer, who vigorously disagreed with our point of view. To his mind, the fact that Haiku
now has strong Unix compatibility, with some of the main Unix
directories present in its filesystem, a quite complete set of Unix
API calls, a Unix shell, and so on, means that Haiku is quite
definitely a Unix. We feel that inasmuch as it's a reimplementation
of BeOS, with its own native filesystem, API, GUI and so on, it's
something different, which offers Unix compatibility as well.
But this illustrates the difficulty of defining precisely what the
word "Unix" means in the 21st century. It hasn't meant "based on
AT&T code" since Novell bought Unix System Labs from AT&T in 1993,
kept the code, and donated the trademark to the Open Group. Since
that time, if it passes the Open Group's testing (and you pay a fee
to use the trademark), it's UNIX (tm). Haiku hasn't so it isn't.
Linux has so it is. But then so is z/OS, which is a direct
descendant of OS/390, or IBM MVS as it was called when it was
launched in 1974. In other words, an OS which isn't actually based
on, similar to, or even related to Unix.
Which means that the last officially trademarked commercial UNIX (tm)
is Apple's macOS 13, which underneath the proprietary GUI layer is
mostly an open source OS called Darwin anyway. The kernel, XNU, is
based on Mach with an in-kernel "Unix server" derived from FreeBSD.
So, as of 2023, open source really has won. There are more Unix-like
OSes than ever, and some very un-Unix-like OSes which are highly
compatible with it, but the official line is, to all intents and
purposes, dead and gone. All the proprietary, commercial Unixes are
now on life support: they will get essential bug fixes and security
updates, but we won't be seeing any major new releases.
Send flowers.
From: https://www.theregister.com/2023/01/17/unix_is_dead/
As far as the linux lives, unix will never die. I am using pop linux.
On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 8:15:21 PM UTC+2, Ben Collver wrote:
Unix is dead. Long live Unix!
Don't expect to see any more big AIX news. This means the last Unix
left is... Linux
Liam Proven
Tue 17 Jan 2023
Linux isn’t Unix. They appear to have missed off the most commercially successful Unix...macOS.
On 11 Feb 2023, Y A wrote
(in article<420c786f-934f-4bbc-b4d2-91793af96655n@googlegroups.com>):
As far as the linux lives, unix will never die. I am using pop linux.
On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 8:15:21 PM UTC+2, Ben Collver wrote:
Unix is dead. Long live Unix!
Don't expect to see any more big AIX news. This means the last Unix
left is... Linux
Liam Proven
Tue 17 Jan 2023
Linux isn’t Unix. They appear to have missed off the most commercially >successful Unix...macOS.
Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> wrote:
On 11 Feb 2023, Y A wrote
(in article<420c786f-934f-4bbc-b4d2-91793af96655n@googlegroups.com>):
As far as the linux lives, unix will never die. I am using pop linux.
On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 8:15:21 PM UTC+2, Ben Collver wrote:
Unix is dead. Long live Unix!
Don't expect to see any more big AIX news. This means the last Unix left is... Linux
Liam Proven
Tue 17 Jan 2023
Linux isn’t Unix. They appear to have missed off the most commercially successful Unix...macOS.
MacOS X is really nothing like Unix under the hood. It has a UI that sort of looks like Unix until you start looking hard and realizing that the password file is really just the product of a secret hidden database, etc.
In some ways it's a win, because you get a kernel designed for multimedia stuff
combined with a mostly-Unix UI.
--Scott
On 22 Feb 2023, Scott Dorsey wrote
MacOS X is really nothing like Unix under the hood. It has a UI that sort of >> looks like Unix until you start looking hard and realizing that the password >> file is really just the product of a secret hidden database, etc.It’s literally Unix.
In some ways it's a win, because you get a kernel designed for multimedia
stuff combined with a mostly-Unix UI.
People confuse what Unix actually is with an arbitrary layout. And I
use macOS from the command line constantly - have done for years. I do
wish they’d make their mind up about /usr/local/bin staying put in upgrades, but otherwise it’s been fine.
The case sensitive filesystem is one of the more annoying aspects from
the command line.
With Bash on Linux you can turn off a bunch of the case sensitivity in
the shell if you want. See the "completion-ignore-case" readline
setting and the "nocaseglob" shopt option.
In comp.misc, Ian McCall<ian@eruvia.org> wrote:
It’s literally Unix.
I'll leave the full debate on thar for others, but Scott and I have both
used literal Apple Unix in the form of A/UX and this OSX thing is a
different beast.
The case sensitive filesystem is one of the more annoying aspects from
the command line. A system wide preference for Capital letters for
Folders (directories) and for putting spaces in file names makes
everything a bit trickier. (Linux lets me rename "standard" XDG crap directories with a ~/.config/user-dirs.dirs file, but Apple won't let me
`mv Desktop desktop` : "Permission denied".)
Elijah
------
suspects Scott's criteria for Unix are different than typical Linux users
Unix is defined by the Open Group. The Open Group certify macOS as
Unix. macOS is Unix.
And this is exactly what I mean. None of that is required for a thing
to be Unix, it's an attribute of the filesystem etc..
doesn't feel Apple really wants to more than "checklist Unix"
On 2023-02-26, Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
doesn't feel Apple really wants to more than "checklist Unix"
I like that phrase "checklist Unix."
When i think of Unix, i think of the New Jersey license plate:
"UNIX: live free or die"
Ben Collver <bencollver@tilde.pink> writes:
On 2023-02-26, Eli the Bearded<*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
doesn't feel Apple really wants to more than "checklist Unix"
I like that phrase "checklist Unix."
When i think of Unix, i think of the New Jersey license plate:
"UNIX: live free or die"
You're thinking of New Hampshire where people truly dedicated to the
slogan go to jail for refusing to allow the gummint to force them to
exhibit a political slogan, even one they believe in, on their cars.
I thought New Jersey's was "Where's the vig?”
Interesting info from the horse’s mouth, so to speak: <https://www.quora.com/What-goes-into-making-an-OS-to-be-Unix-compliant- certified>
Ben Collver <bencollver@tilde.pink> writes:
On 2023-02-26, Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
doesn't feel Apple really wants to more than "checklist Unix"
When i think of Unix, i think of the New Jersey license plate:
"UNIX: live free or die"
You're thinking of New Hampshire...
Unix is defined by the Open Group. The Open Group certify macOS
as Unix. macOS is Unix.
Linux isn’t Unix. macOS -is-. This is a pure trademark matter and not POSIX, filesystems, Gnu shell capabilities, XDG standards...
Apple wasn’t certified to be Unix but kept saying it was whereas
Open Group realised more people cared about Apple than them.
Interesting info from the horse’s mouth, so to speak: <https://www.quora.com/What-goes-into-making-an-OS-to-be-Unix-compliant- certified>
Ian McCall wrote:
Unix is defined by the Open Group. The Open Group certify macOS[...]
as Unix. macOS is Unix.
Linux isn’t Unix. macOS -is-. This is a pure trademark matter and not POSIX, filesystems, Gnu shell capabilities, XDG standards...
You are right about the other things, but not POSIX. To achieve
UNIX certification (and thus be able to use the trademark) requires
passing tens of thousands of tests which check that the system behaves
as per the requirements of POSIX.1 and The Single UNIX Specification
(which are one and the same document).
Relevant to, to anyone that’s coded in the Linux kernel before:
"If I were asked to do the same thing for Linux, it likely would take five >years, and two dozen people. Linux is pretty balkanize, has a lot of kingdom >building, and you have to pee on everything to make it smell like Linux.
I could do the same in FreeBSD in about a year and a half, with a dozen >co-conspirators to run the changes through.
In comp.misc, Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> wrote:
Unix is defined by the Open Group. The Open Group certify macOS as
Unix. macOS is Unix.
Yes, but what is that definition versus what do people think of as Unix?
On 27 Feb 2023, Geoff Clare wrote
(in article<msnucj-3hi.ln1@ID-313840.user.individual.net>):
Ian McCall wrote:
Unix is defined by the Open Group. The Open Group certify macOS[...]
as Unix. macOS is Unix.
Linux isn’t Unix. macOS -is-. This is a pure trademark matter and not
POSIX, filesystems, Gnu shell capabilities, XDG standards...
You are right about the other things, but not POSIX. To achieve
UNIX certification (and thus be able to use the trademark) requires
passing tens of thousands of tests which check that the system behaves
as per the requirements of POSIX.1 and The Single UNIX Specification
(which are one and the same document).
Windows NT was POSIX compliant. MVS was POSIX. And neither were Unix. They’re different specs.
Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> wrote:Couldn’t agree more.
Relevant to, to anyone that’s coded in the Linux kernel before:
"If I were asked to do the same thing for Linux, it likely would take five years, and two dozen people. Linux is pretty balkanize, has a lot of kingdom
building, and you have to pee on everything to make it smell like Linux.
I could do the same in FreeBSD in about a year and a half, with a dozen co-conspirators to run the changes through.
This is a good thing. I WANT it to be hard to add features to the kernel.
I am tired of people adding features to the kernel. Please stop adding features.
I would in fact claim that the BSD kernel is comparatively less feature-ridden
in spite of their policies.
--Scott
Ian McCall wrote:
On 27 Feb 2023, Geoff Clare wrote
(in article<msnucj-3hi.ln1@ID-313840.user.individual.net>):
Ian McCall wrote:
Linux isn’t Unix. macOS -is-. This is a pure trademark matter and not POSIX, filesystems, Gnu shell capabilities, XDG standards...
You are right about the other things, but not POSIX. To achieve
UNIX certification (and thus be able to use the trademark) requires passing tens of thousands of tests which check that the system behaves
as per the requirements of POSIX.1 and The Single UNIX Specification (which are one and the same document).
Windows NT was POSIX compliant. MVS was POSIX. And neither were Unix. They’re different specs.
Windows NT and MVS were certified POSIX compliant in the mid 1990's.
At that time POSIX.1 and SUS were indeed different specs, and POSIX.2
was separate from POSIX.1. All three were merged in 2001 to form POSIX.1-2001/SUSv3, which was before macOS was certified.
On 27 Feb 2023, Geoff Clare wrote
(in article<msnucj-3hi.ln1@ID-313840.user.individual.net>):
Ian McCall wrote:
Linux isn’t Unix. macOS -is-. This is a pure trademark matter and not
POSIX, filesystems, Gnu shell capabilities, XDG standards...
You are right about the other things, but not POSIX. To achieve
UNIX certification (and thus be able to use the trademark) requires
passing tens of thousands of tests which check that the system behaves
as per the requirements of POSIX.1 and The Single UNIX Specification
(which are one and the same document).
Windows NT was POSIX compliant. MVS was POSIX. And neither were Unix. They’re different specs.
On 28 Feb 2023, Scott Dorsey wrote
(in article <ttjqcj$g9c$1@panix2.panix.com>):
Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> wrote:Couldn't agree more.
Relevant to, to anyone that’s coded in the Linux kernel before:
"If I were asked to do the same thing for Linux, it likely would take five >> > years, and two dozen people. Linux is pretty balkanize, has a lot of kingdom
building, and you have to pee on everything to make it smell like Linux. >> > I could do the same in FreeBSD in about a year and a half, with a dozen
co-conspirators to run the changes through.
This is a good thing. I WANT it to be hard to add features to the kernel.
I am tired of people adding features to the kernel. Please stop adding
features.
I would in fact claim that the BSD kernel is comparatively less feature-ridden
in spite of their policies.
--Scott
Do they have a stable ABI yet? When I was coding it, they didn't and touted >that as an -advantage-. It wasn't of course, dreadful idea and the reason >drivers kept needed recompiling all the time. Reminded me of the >expunged-from-history page the MySQL site used to have explaining that >foreign keys were bad "because it makes application programming hard".
On 28 Feb 2023, Dan Cross wrote (in article <ttlbtg$iql$1@reader2.panix.com>):
In article<0001HW.29ADE6BC01D1602C70000FCBD38F@news.individual.net>,
Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> wrote:
Do they have a stable ABI yet? When I was coding it, they didn't and
touted that as an -advantage-. It wasn't of course, dreadful idea and
the reason drivers kept needed recompiling all the time. Reminded me
of the expunged-from-history page the MySQL site used to have
explaining that foreign keys were bad "because it makes application
programming hard".
I think you mean stable internal interfaces, not ABI.
One of the Linux invariants is, "never break userspace!"
which implies a stable system call interface.
Of course, they change the format of files under /sys and stuff, but
hey.
Definitely meant ABI. It’s the binary bit that’s key - it’s why people had to recompile drivers all the time which didn’t happen with other
OSs.
In article<0001HW.29ADE6BC01D1602C70000FCBD38F@news.individual.net>,
Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> wrote:
Do they have a stable ABI yet? When I was coding it, they didn't and touted that as an -advantage-. It wasn't of course, dreadful idea and the reason drivers kept needed recompiling all the time. Reminded me of the expunged-from-history page the MySQL site used to have explaining that foreign keys were bad "because it makes application programming hard".
I think you mean stable internal interfaces, not ABI.
One of the Linux invariants is, "never break userspace!"
which implies a stable system call interface.
Of course, they change the format of files under /sys
and stuff, but hey.
On Wed, 01 Mar 2023 09:02:40 +0000, Ian McCall wrote:
On 28 Feb 2023, Dan Cross wrote (in article <ttlbtg$iql$1@reader2.panix.com>):
In article<0001HW.29ADE6BC01D1602C70000FCBD38F@news.individual.net>,
Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> wrote:
Do they have a stable ABI yet? When I was coding it, they didn't and touted that as an -advantage-. It wasn't of course, dreadful idea and the reason drivers kept needed recompiling all the time. Reminded me
of the expunged-from-history page the MySQL site used to have explaining that foreign keys were bad "because it makes application programming hard".
I think you mean stable internal interfaces, not ABI.
One of the Linux invariants is, "never break userspace!"
which implies a stable system call interface.
Of course, they change the format of files under /sys and stuff, but
hey.
Definitely meant ABI. It’s the binary bit that’s key - it’s why people
had to recompile drivers all the time which didn’t happen with other
OSs.
For quite a while, that only has to be done with a new major version.
On 28 Feb 2023, Dan Cross wrote
(in article <ttlbtg$iql$1@reader2.panix.com>):
In article<0001HW.29ADE6BC01D1602C70000FCBD38F@news.individual.net>,
Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> wrote:
Do they have a stable ABI yet? When I was coding it, they didn't and touted
that as an -advantage-. It wasn't of course, dreadful idea and the reason >> > drivers kept needed recompiling all the time. Reminded me of the
expunged-from-history page the MySQL site used to have explaining that
foreign keys were bad "because it makes application programming hard".
I think you mean stable internal interfaces, not ABI.
One of the Linux invariants is, "never break userspace!"
which implies a stable system call interface.
Of course, they change the format of files under /sys
and stuff, but hey.
Definitely meant ABI. It's the binary bit that's key - it's why people
had to recompile drivers all the time which didn't happen with other OSs.
On 1 Mar 2023, Bob Eager wrote (in article <k68iu8FugeuU10@mid.individual.net>):
On Wed, 01 Mar 2023 09:02:40 +0000, Ian McCall wrote:
On 28 Feb 2023, Dan Cross wrote (in article
<ttlbtg$iql$1@reader2.panix.com>):
In
article<0001HW.29ADE6BC01D1602C70000FCBD38F@news.individual.net>,
Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> wrote:
Do they have a stable ABI yet? When I was coding it, they didn't
and touted that as an -advantage-. It wasn't of course, dreadful
idea and the reason drivers kept needed recompiling all the time.
Reminded me of the expunged-from-history page the MySQL site used
to have explaining that foreign keys were bad "because it makes
application programming hard".
I think you mean stable internal interfaces, not ABI.
One of the Linux invariants is, "never break userspace!"
which implies a stable system call interface.
Of course, they change the format of files under /sys and stuff,
but hey.
Definitely meant ABI. It’s the binary bit that’s key - it’s why
people had to recompile drivers all the time which didn’t happen with
other OSs.
For quite a while, that only has to be done with a new major version.
Thanks. Hard to find exactly when it got one, but this article seems to suggest it was around 2016: <https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linux-Kernel-Stable-API-ABI>
...so yes, that’s after I was doing kernel coding by quite a way.
Do you, though? Oh, say, x86, Linux uses the SysV ABI. People
need to recompile their drivers because the internals change all
the time, not because the calling convention and structure
layouts change.
MVS has a unix subsystem. I found it a reasonable unix.
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
MVS has a unix subsystem. I found it a reasonable unix.
I can't even imagine that. Using vi on a 3270 is farther than my mind can stretch.
On 1 Mar 2023, Dan Cross wrote
(in article <ttnpd4$7l7$3@reader2.panix.com>):
Do you, though? Oh, say, x86, Linux uses the SysV ABI. People
need to recompile their drivers because the internals change all
the time, not because the calling convention and structure
layouts change.
The only reason you'd need to recompile drivers as opposed to install >binaries is because of the ABI. It's possible you might -choose- to, but
the only reason you'd need to is ABI.
This is trivially provable by the
fact that every other OS, which has a stable ABI, doesn't require you to >compile your drivers but can instead install them as binaries.
Linux used to tout this as an advantage ("used to" - remember I was
mostly coding in the kernel in the 90s, so don't know when or if they
changed their opinion). It isn't an advantage, it's a -disadvantage-. >Hopefully they changed their opinion.
Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> wrote:
The only reason you'd need to recompile drivers as opposed to install
binaries is because of the ABI. It's possible you might -choose- to,
but the only reason you'd need to is ABI.
What, exactly, is your definition of "the ABI"?
This is trivially provable by the fact that every other OS, which has
a stable ABI, doesn't require you to compile your drivers but can
instead install them as binaries.
You seem to be conflating an "ABI" with the general notion of a
programming interface. I agree that Linux does not keep the
latter stable within the kernel, but that is not the same as the
former.
Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> wrote:
The only reason you'd need to recompile drivers as opposed to install
binaries is because of the ABI. It's possible you might -choose- to,
but the only reason you'd need to is ABI.
What, exactly, is your definition of "the ABI"?
This is trivially provable by the fact that every other OS, which has
a stable ABI, doesn't require you to compile your drivers but can
instead install them as binaries.
You seem to be conflating an "ABI" with the general notion of a
programming interface. I agree that Linux does not keep the
latter stable within the kernel, but that is not the same as the
former.
You seem to be using ABI to mean little more than calling conventions
and object file formats, which is a very narrow usage of the term, and >certainly not a universal one.
A long-standing example which goes beyond that would be IBCS, which
specified details for syscalls, structure definitions, etc for an ABI
between a user program and a kernel on an x86 Unix. (I think Linux
suported it at one point, I don't know if it still does and it's barely >relevant any more anyway.)
The Linux kernel's module interface, from the perspective of compiled
code, is an ABI in that broader sense (as well as being an API from the >perspective of source code).
The Linux kernel module interface is defined to not be stable;
what you and the OP are asking for are two separate but related
things: a stable interface and a stable ABI to call it with.
You get the latter, but not the former.
The Linux kernel module interface is defined to not be stable;
what you and the OP are asking for are two separate but related
things: a stable interface and a stable ABI to call it with.
You get the latter, but not the former.
I'm not asking for anything, I'm just saying what I think an ABI
means. Based on e.g. Wikipedia and the Linux kernel docs, I don't think
I'm alone.
On 1/18/23 2:58 AM, Marco Moock wrote:
There is UNIX and UNIX-like. Some people confuse them.
I usually refer to these as Unix and unix (like OS).
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 343 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 34:04:19 |
| Calls: | 7,557 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,733 |
| Messages: | 5,655,905 |