Messages in this thread |  | | | Subject | Re: Linux in a binary world... a doomsday scenario | | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | | Date | Thu, 15 Dec 2005 08:11:16 +0100 |
| |
On Thu, 2005-12-15 at 07:49 +0300, Al Boldi wrote: > Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > On Thu, 2005-12-15 at 00:13 +0300, Al Boldi wrote: > > > Greg KH wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > > > I read this doc, and it doesn't make your case any clearer, on the > > > contrary! > > > > > > But first, your work to the kernel represents a not so dumb > > > contribution, especially the replacement of devfs. Thanks! > > > > > > Now, to call a stable api nonsense is nonsense. Really, only a _stable_ > > > api is worth to be considered an API. Think about it. > > > > a stable api/abi for the linux kernel would take at least 2 years to > > develop. The current API is not designed for stable-ness, a stable API > > needs stricter separation between the layers and more opaque pointers > > etc etc. > > True. But it would be time well spent.
feel free to spend your time on it, you seem to consider it well spent time. A lot of us don't, so we're not going to spend our time on it....
> > There is a price you pay for having such a rigid scheme (it arguably has > > advantages too, those are mostly relevant in a closed source system tho) > > is that it's a lot harder to implement improvements. > > This is a common misconception.
a stable API is more rigid, that is not and can't be a misconception.
> What is true is that a closed system is > forced to implement a stable api by nature. In an OpenSource system you can > just hack around, which may seem to speed your development cycle when in > fact it inhibits it.
in practice it doesn't. The kernel drivers are GPL, and API changes when needed just happen, all callers are fixed. The alternative would be a "crooked" API which needs workarounds on both sides. No thanks.
> > > Linux isn't so much designed as evolved, and in evolution, new dominant > > things emerge regularly. A stable API would prevent those from even coming > > into existing, let alone become dominant and implemented. > > GNU/OpenSource is unguided by nature. A stable API contributes to a guided > development that is scalable. Scalability is what leads you to new heights, > or else could you imagine how ugly it would be to send this message using > asm?
I think Linux proves you wrong (and a bit of a troll to be honest ;)
Anyway, it's an open system, if you think something should happen... you can make it happen by contributing and then defending it. If it's the right thing, it'll then happen.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |