3 ms·
There's been various explanations and rationales provided over the years, but from Linus' own words in 1999 (see https://lwn.net/Articles/159313/ https://lwn.ne
by tremon 5y ago
There's been various explanations and rationales provided over the years, but from Linus' own words in 1999 (see https://lwn.net/Articles/159313/ https://lwn.net/Articles/159313/):
Basically, I want people to know that when they use binary-only modules, it's THEIR problem. I want people to know that in their bones, and I want it shouted out from the rooftops. I want people to wake up in a cold sweat every once in a while if they use binary-only modules.
The less activist stance is simply that maintaining a stable ABI requires either accumulating lots of backwards compatibility layers over time, or to stop improving certain parts of the kernel. Neither option has won out over the current situation.
- 2muchcoffeeman 5y agoI know nothing about this topic. Is there a reasonable work around to this? To provide something stable for hardware manufacturers but allowing the current kernel practices to continue?
- hutzlibu 5y agoThere is none. When linus stance is, that he wants to make it intentionally hard, for binary blobs, than this won't change. I am all for open source drivers. But I would prefer working proprietary ones, if the alternative is buggy as hell.
- rsaxvc 5y agoI think Nvidia uses their own shim layer.