From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750881AbVLOSff (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Dec 2005 13:35:35 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750897AbVLOSff (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Dec 2005 13:35:35 -0500 Received: from [212.76.81.44] ([212.76.81.44]:64780 "EHLO raad.intranet") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750881AbVLOSfe (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Dec 2005 13:35:34 -0500 From: Al Boldi To: Helge Hafting Subject: Re: Linux in a binary world... a doomsday scenario Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 21:29:01 +0300 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 Cc: Nick Piggin , Arjan van de Ven , Greg KH , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <200512150013.29549.a1426z@gawab.com> <200512151131.39216.a1426z@gawab.com> <43A1501F.5070803@aitel.hist.no> In-Reply-To: <43A1501F.5070803@aitel.hist.no> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200512152129.01861.a1426z@gawab.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Disadvantages of a stable API: > * It encourages binary-only drivers, while we prefer source drivers. > Changing the API often and without warning is one way of > hampering binary-only driver development without harming > open-source drivers. You are really shooting yourself in the foot here. > Do a stable API save us work? No, because whoever changes the API > also fixes all in-kernel users of said API. That's very inefficient. > how is non-OpenSource different? What can we do better? How can we > learn from them? Pretty much nothing, except for taking advantage of their precooked interconnectivity api's, in which they excel in abstracting them pretty well. > > 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. > > No, it's not clear what you mean by scalability. What is it exactly that > you think would be more scalable? As has been mentioned already, there > is no better example today of scalable development than the Linux kernel. > So, I don't think you've laid out at all what it is you're talking about. > > 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. > > The linux kernel development model scales very well. Linux itself scales > from the smallest embedded processors to the largest parallel computing > farms today; all without a stable internal API. So you've failed to make > a case that there is a problem for which a stable API is the solution. > > Another option is that your assumption about "stability as a requirement > for scalability" is wrong at least in case of the kernel. The kernel > development scales very well so far. I can't see any delays caused by > developers trying to keep up with a change in binary APIs. Well, > except a handful of closed source vendors, but that is more or less > intentional. If they get tired, they can hand in their source. > > I think most believe what I do: that our development model is scalable > (scalability seems to be the least of its worries), and that unstable > APIs are not a bad thing. Don't mistake scalability for manageability/mantainability or flexibility. Scalability is more, much more. It's about extendability and reusability built on a solid foundation that may be stacked. Layers upon layers, the sky is the limit. Stability is the key to unlock this scalability. > > No troll! Just being IMHO. I hope that's OK? > > That's fine, but Linux and the development process is a personal > achievement and creation of many here, so you have to try to be > respectful :) Sorry! Can you point out which part was offending? Thanks! -- Al