[lkml]   [2005]   [Dec]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Linux in a binary world... a doomsday scenario
    Nick Piggin wrote:
    > Al Boldi wrote:
    > > Arjan van de Ven wrote:
    > >>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.
    > Who's time would be well spent?
    > Not mine because I don't want a stable API. Not mine because I
    > don't use binary drivers and I don't care to encourage them.
    > [that is, unless you manage to convince me below ;)]

    The fact that somebody may take advantage of a stable API should not lead us
    to reject the idea per se.

    > 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.

    > >>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. 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.
    > How? I'm quite willing to listen, but throwing around words like 'guided
    > development' and 'scalability' doesn't do anything. How does the lack of a
    > stable API inhibit my kernel development work, exactly?

    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.

    > >>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.
    > 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.

    > > 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?
    > Let's not bother with bad analogies and stick to facts. Do you know how
    > many people work on the Linux kernel? And how rapidly the source tree
    > changes? Estimates of how many bugs we have? Comparitive numbers from
    > projects with stable APIs? That would be very interesting.

    You got me here! It's really common sense as in:
    stability breeds scalability, and instability breeds chaos.

    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?

    Of course, if your aim is not to be scalable then please ignore this message
    as it will not have any meaning.



    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-12-15 09:38    [W:0.025 / U:1.108 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site