FreeBSD 9.1-RC1 Available...

[Mark Felder]

On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 00:18:09 -0500, Konstantin Belousov  
<kostikbel at gmail.com> wrote:

> This is a statement that is false at least two times, if not three.
> This was a question about Kernel Binary Inteface, not Application
> Binary Interface.

I actually did mean to say KBI instead of ABI :-/

> First, we have zero guarantees about ability to load or have a system
> survive loading of the module compiled against the later kernel.
> Second, we do not have real KBI definition, and KBI stability is managed
> only ad-hock. E.g. VFS quite often breaks, while network or disk  
> controllers
> drivers are usually fine.

I'll have to search my email but I had a conversation with someone whom I  
trusted (I believe within the FBSD project) that either mislead me or I  
misread what they were saying. Either way, thank you for the clarification.

> YMMV. Snobby false statements hurt the project.

There was nothing snobby about it; I was merely using Linux as a point of  
reference since most *nix users should have experience with Linux  
rejecting kernel modules that weren't compiled against that exact kernel.  
I could very well have said Plan9 instead but it would be meaningless  
because nobody actually runs Plan9. :-)


Thanks again Konstantin :-)