2 ms·
> 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 ma
by 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 agoI 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.