| |||||||||||||
The end for Video4Linux1The end for Video4Linux1Posted Mar 25, 2010 9:53 UTC (Thu) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183)Parent article: The end for Video4Linux1
Personally I welcome a certain tempering of the "binary compatibility for ever" line. There
are so many other reasons why it will be hard to get e.g. a binary build for Linux 0.99 to run on a current system that keeping the kernel binary interfaces that stable seems a bit silly. If you really need to run that sort of binary you can still go for an emulation or virtualisation solution of one shape or another, and there are other places compatibility layers can be kept than inside the security-critical kernel space.
(Log in to post comments)
The end for Video4Linux1 Posted Mar 26, 2010 16:36 UTC (Fri) by jwarnica (subscriber, #27492) [Link]
The theory should also be flexible, and change as you get to more and more obscure things. And take into consideration the ecosystem of what actually uses that feature.
V4L, almost by definition, deals with unusual and possibly obscure hardware. The usecases might neatly fall into: stable systems with old hardware that never changes, is never upgraded, etc. And: bleeding edge systems with new and cool hardware, tweaked to the Nth degree by some geek giant.
At the very least: V4L deals with hardware. Old hardware? Old kernel. New hardware? New kernel. That seems fair and reasonable to me.
|
|||||||||||||