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

[Coywolf Qi Hunt <coywolf@gmail.com>]

2005/12/6, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>:
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 04:23:57PM -0800, Tim Bird wrote:
> > Dave Airlie wrote:
> > >>To the larger argument about supporting binary drivers,
> > >>all Arjan manages to prove with his post is that,
> > >>if handled in the worst possible way, support for
> > >>binary drivers would be a disaster.  Who can disagree
> > >>with that?
> > >>
> > > And do you think that given the opportunity, any company is going
> > > spend the extra money required to not do it in the worst possible
> > > way??
> >
> > I meant "handled in the worst possible way by
> > the kernel developers".  It *is* possible to define
> > stable APIs and have them used successfully.
> >
> > POSIX is not the greatest example, but it seems
> > to work OK.  I realize that drivers are more
> > tightly bound to the kernel than are libraries
> > or applications, but sheesh, this is not rocket
> > science.
>
> For people to think that the kernel developers are just "too dumb" to
> make a stable kernel api (and yes, I've had people accuse me of this
> many times to my face[1]) shows a total lack of understanding as to
> _why_ we change the in-kernel api all the time.  Please see
> Documentation/stable_api_nonsense.txt for details on this.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>
> [1] My usual response is, "If we are so dumb, why are you using the kernel
>     made by us?", which usually stops the conversation right there.

Your response is nonsense. It has the same logic as saying "If
proprietary software is wrong, why are you using it?".
Everybody are using proprietary software, aren't they?

If the pattern goes in A->B .... ->A, then the developers are really dumb.
--
Coywolf Qi Hunt
http://sosdg.org/~coywolf/