site_archiver@lists.apple.com Delivered-To: darwin-dev@lists.apple.com Amanda Walker _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Darwin-dev mailing list (Darwin-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/darwin-dev/site_archiver%40lists.appl... On Aug 16, 2007, at 2:45 AM, Matt Burnett wrote: I think the preceding threads prove my point that there is a demand from the development community to provide kernel hooks even if the interface is volatile. There is demand for KPIs. "Kernel Hooks" are a workaround when a KPI doesn't exist, not a solution, because they rely by definition on a particular implementation. Just the phrase "patching syscalls" involves making many implementation assumptions. . If Apple doesn't provide one, then that makes me think they dont want to because it could destroy the user expierence with kernel panics. No. It means that they want to be free to improve the kernel without breaking other things. The downside to that is, if Apple doesn't provide a regulated but liberal interface into the kernel the developers will create their own. And their products will break. Often. This happens even in user mode--look at the messes created by Application Enhancer. lol, should i be impressed with your email address as well? Well, you're the one who asked for assistance, and got the answer "the approach you describe is a bad idea" from people with a lot of experience. Nobody can stop you from doing whatever you want, of course. We can only suggest that it's likely to be an unrewarding way to go about it. This email sent to site_archiver@lists.apple.com