Executable memory: further programs that fail

[Chuck Wolber]

> > Thank God that's not the case, otherwise the 2.6 kernel would never
> > come out... (referring to the fact that a few changes to 2.5/2.6 broke
> > nearly *ALL* loadable modules at one time)
> 
> Comparing a kernel feature that doesn't work for nearly all modules to a
> kernel feature that maybe affects 1% of binary applications( which could
> be argued are doing technically 'illegal' tricks with regard to the
> memory space ) .... is a bit of a stretch.

Then I'd say you missed my point completely. The issue was wether or not
to make a change if it affected existing code (and by extension end users)
in an adverse way.

-Chuck


-- 
Quantum Linux Laboratories - ACCELERATING Business with Open Technology
   * Education			| -=^ Ad Astra Per Aspera ^=-
   * Integration		| http://www.quantumlinux.com
   * Support			| chuckw at quantumlinux.com

 "M stands for magic, mystery or matrix; according to taste."
				--Edward Witten