Messages in this thread | | | From | Al Boldi <> | Subject | Re: Linux in a binary world... a doomsday scenario | Date | Thu, 15 Dec 2005 21:29:01 +0300 |
| |
> 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
- 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/
| |