Stable API nonsense! :) > I'm getting the impression that a lot of dev power is wasted just to maintain drivers No. Maintenance of in-tree drivers is done mos

Stable API nonsense! :) > I'm getting the impression that a lot of dev power is wasted just to maintain drivers No. Maintenance of in-tree drivers is done mostly by subsystems maintainers, in automated fashion (see http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/ http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/). Including API/ABI-breaking changes. But nobody notices, because it all goes at once, in sync. > that should be produced by hardware vendors Yep, vendors should. But only few of them do it properly. Most of vendors fall into such shameful categories: - who don't publish drivers sources at all, violating GPL; - who don't care about quality and just feel fine with their utter crap of code, based on ages-old kernel and buggy drivers full of braindead things; also, no updates and no forward-ports; - who, in addition to above, distribute only obfuscated sources. Stable ABI would help only to those bad actors who are enemies of user freedom and don't share sources. Nobody else is having a problem with unstable ABI. > I don't like the concept of pluggable /stackable security mechanisms (selinux, apparmor, etc) where one consistent system would do. It just feels cluttered. There was, and still is, lack of coherence in community views on what is best. I believe pluggable security modules is the best possible way to give freedom to everybody.