Re: Linux in a binary world... a doomsday scenario

[Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>]

> > Anyone else is free to fork the kernel and develop their own
> > stable API for it.
> 
> That would be sad.
> 
> The objective of a stable API would be to aid the collective effort and not 
> to divide it.

I think you missed how linux development works. Things fork all the
time. The unsuccessful forks die. The successful ones join the "main
line" again. Darwinism at work.

You're free to put your coding where your mouth is and design and
implement a stable API. If it's a success.. it'll get there. If it's
not.. no harm done to the rest. 

> If you are working alone a stable API would be overkill.  But GNU/Linux is a 
> collective effort, where stability is paramount to aid scalability.
> 
> I hope the concepts here are clear.

I think I don't get how you come from "stable API" to "aid scalability"
in the light that the current non-API doesn't seem to prevent
scalability to the size linux development is today.



> > I've got a fairly good idea of what work I'm doing, and what I'm planning
> > to do, long term goals, projects, etc. What would be the key differences
> > with "non-GNU/OpenSource" development that would make you say they are not
> > unguided by nature?
> 
> The same goes for OpenSource in general, but GNU/OpenSource has a larger 
> community and therefore is in greater need of a stable API.

again you skip a step. I see how a "large community" leads to "needs a
visible API". The leap to "need stable API" I don't see in practice.


> Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > I think Linux proves you wrong (and a bit of a troll to be honest ;)
> 
> No troll! Just being IMHO. I hope that's OK?

I hope you're also willing to put your effort where your words are,
otherwise you are trolling to a large degree.