4 ms·

Stable API, not stable ABI. Installation through compilation is normal. Those who complain about it have no clue what they are complaining about, because they d

by shmerl 8y ago

Stable API, not stable ABI. Installation through compilation is normal. Those who complain about it have no clue what they are complaining about, because they don't even see it when dkms drivers are recompiled. So again, go learn about it, before saying it's a problem. Otherwise you are tilting at windmills.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
I don't think you're understanding anything I'm saying if you think that an API that requires recompilation from source of drivers on every kernel release is at all comparable to a multi-year stable driver ABI. What was this all about again? Oh right: Linux has bad support for some hardware, you blame the "driver manufacturers" for writing bad drivers, I blamed the kernel for accepting bad drivers. Here's the crux of my argument: If it is the manufacturer's responsibility to create and maintain drivers, then they shouldn't have to open source them and mainline them because they did all the work and took responsibility. However, the kernel devs refuse to provide a stable ABI for drivers, making this nigh impossible. They claim that this is because it ensures higher quality drivers that can be maintained without the manufacturer, but that is clearly false because many drivers are crap and not maintained despite being mainlined. So instead of taking any responsibility for bad drivers, people like you just blame everyone else. A tried and true practice of Linux Desktop evangelists.
- shmerl 8y ago
  > Here's the crux of my argument: If it is the manufacturer's responsibility to create and maintain drivers, then they shouldn't have to open source them and mainline them because they did all the work and took responsibility. I already said about both requirements. Only those who don't upstream or don't maintain their drivers have such problems. Remove either one - and problems are guaranteed. Stable ABI is only going to cause issues because developers won't care to fix anything thinking that "they are done with it" like you said. And review by the kernel maintainers is a good thing. There should be no trust for blobs. TL;DR: things are working well with responsible hardware makers. So use their hardware, and avoid irresponsible ones. There is no reason for Linux maintainers to change their approach which works.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
    I can't help but see that as entitled. "Give us all your driver code, and then do all the work of maintaining it for us".
    - shmerl 8y ago
      > Give us all your driver code Yes, drivers should be opened. It's a reasonable requirement for the kernel, and those who refuse to be opened should be treated as quirks and edge cases. And who if not hardware makers know best how to maintain it? You seem to think that "throw it there and do what you want" approach is good. It's not, if you value quality. But if you want garbage drivers - no one is stopping you from using a broken WiFi, just don't complain if you chose to do it.

by shmerl 8y ago

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago

I don't think you're understanding anything I'm saying if you think that an API that requires recompilation from source of drivers on every kernel release is at all comparable to a multi-year stable driver ABI. What was this all about again? Oh right: Linux has bad support for some hardware, you blame the "driver manufacturers" for writing bad drivers, I blamed the kernel for accepting bad drivers. Here's the crux of my argument: If it is the manufacturer's responsibility to create and maintain drivers, then they shouldn't have to open source them and mainline them because they did all the work and took responsibility. However, the kernel devs refuse to provide a stable ABI for drivers, making this nigh impossible. They claim that this is because it ensures higher quality drivers that can be maintained without the manufacturer, but that is clearly false because many drivers are crap and not maintained despite being mainlined. So instead of taking any responsibility for bad drivers, people like you just blame everyone else. A tried and true practice of Linux Desktop evangelists.

shmerl 8y ago
> Here's the crux of my argument: If it is the manufacturer's responsibility to create and maintain drivers, then they shouldn't have to open source them and mainline them because they did all the work and took responsibility. I already said about both requirements. Only those who don't upstream or don't maintain their drivers have such problems. Remove either one - and problems are guaranteed. Stable ABI is only going to cause issues because developers won't care to fix anything thinking that "they are done with it" like you said. And review by the kernel maintainers is a good thing. There should be no trust for blobs. TL;DR: things are working well with responsible hardware makers. So use their hardware, and avoid irresponsible ones. There is no reason for Linux maintainers to change their approach which works.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  I can't help but see that as entitled. "Give us all your driver code, and then do all the work of maintaining it for us".
  - shmerl 8y ago
    > Give us all your driver code Yes, drivers should be opened. It's a reasonable requirement for the kernel, and those who refuse to be opened should be treated as quirks and edge cases. And who if not hardware makers know best how to maintain it? You seem to think that "throw it there and do what you want" approach is good. It's not, if you value quality. But if you want garbage drivers - no one is stopping you from using a broken WiFi, just don't complain if you chose to do it.