Breaking internal APIs is also what Linux does. Nvidia and other out-of-tree modules must have a rather hard time with adapting their code to an ever-changing k

Breaking internal APIs is also what Linux does. Nvidia and other out-of-tree modules must have a rather hard time with adapting their code to an ever-changing kernel. Sure there are people who argue for stable APIs. It works for Linux though, and I think that's due to two reasons: 1. There is real value in breaking changes allowing the kernel to move faster. 2. People are not forcibly upgraded to a new kernel. They can do it at their own leisure, when their distro (with manual updates) or personal testing deems it working well enough. Sonos has recently had some bad publicity for trying to force breaking updates onto people, not in terms of APIs but in terms of actual basic functionality. Their recovery move was to allow people to keep their original functionality, but users accept as a trade-off that doing so will not be compatible with devices running the newer and better software. As far as I can see, this approach resonated much better with the public than the original forced one. I believe that embedded hackers will have much less of an issue with breakages if the trade-offs are clearly communicated and control over updates remains in users' hands, including a way to revert to a previous version if things go wrong. It doesn't have to be company vs. users necessarily. But yeah, whether it's worth in business terms to accommodate this exceedingly tiny and understandably demanding minority, that's a different question.