Subject: Re: anti/Law
From: Ben Laurie <ben@algroup.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 18:26:08 +0100

Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> Yep, I agree; let me provide the counter-argument I'm sure someone would
> give, which is that sometimes you need to break interoperability to
> introduce new, better standards.  Look at the problems Microsoft has had
> in trying to support old Win16 programs on Win32 - the 8.3 filename hack,
> for example. Doesn't a piece of software overtime collapse from the
> heavyweight of all the legacy interfaces it has to support?  What escape
> valve does an open source approach to software development have here?

Free software means, to a larger extent, that you have no legacy - you
can fix everything. If the 8.3 problem had been a free software problem,
it would be long gone.

Cheers,

Ben.

--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html

"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
     - Indira Gandhi