3 ms·

Alternative take: Linux could finally create a stable driver ABI so that drivers compiled in 1999 still work with the latest kernel without recompiling, as is w

by bitL 4y ago

Alternative take: Linux could finally create a stable driver ABI so that drivers compiled in 1999 still work with the latest kernel without recompiling, as is with Windows. Until then only the most main-stream devices will be supported.

ronsor 4y ago
Alternativer take: vendors should get their drivers upstreamed so they don't have to maintain them much. Of course, this also means publishing decent hardware documentation which they should be doing regardless. Windows did have and to some extent still has many crappy, old drivers that reduce system stability. We don't need to encourage that on Linux.
- themoonisachees 4y ago
  What is in it for the maintainers who would then have to support hardware they do not neccessarly have access to, adding development time to the linux kernel maintainers who honestly would be better off spending their time improving linux further instead of supporting potentially thousands of users at best? Imo the responisibility lies with the hardware vendors. Sell your hardware with working software, and support it for x years guaranteed. When the support period ends they can decide to extend it (they wont, but they could) instead of relying on developers who have nothing to do with the product and are working for free for the hardware vendor. Either that or contract kernel maintainers to upstream it for x years and they do the heavy lifting, but that's always going to be more expensive than doing it in-house.
  - happymellon 4y ago
    Why do these things have to be mutually exclusive? They already hire kernel hackers to build their drivers and bespoke images in the first place.
  - TheLoafOfBread 4y ago
    This is exactly what I am struggling with as well - what's the point of having it in the upstream, when developers CAN'T TEST THE DRIVER WITH THE DEVICE. Just provide some stable API for drivers and let hardware developers do their job. Microsoft Windows understood this, why is it so difficult for Linux Kernel do get the memo.
- karteum 4y ago
  > Alternativer take: vendors should get their drivers upstreamed so they don't have to maintain them much This is ideology. In real-life, some OEMs are binded by NDAs (so they can't do all what they'd like), and the split between hardware and software is quite blurry (chipset vendors don't want to disclose their secrets by open-sourcing their code). I wish like you that more code would be supported in mainline kernel (just as I wish every single board would support SystemReady/UEFI or any similar solution (ideally more lightweight) so that they could boot a generic kernel just like x86 does (and regardless of the availability of the proper dts for this specific board, which may be hard to download after several years)). But this is not the world we live in. Because of this "stable-api-nonsense" ideology, we end up with piles of junk (e.g. all old smartphones and boards that become unsupported after 2-3 years... and we only have one planet !) while we can still easily use 10-15 years-old PCs.
  - cromka 4y ago
    > This is ideology. In real-life, some OEMs are binded by NDAs (so they can't do all what they'd like) This can be solved by offering a binary firmware, can it not?
Mave83 4y ago
Make it open source, let it be merged in the Linux kernel, and be happy. I don't want windows and exactly this outdated shit. I want Linux and vendors that understand, that software is part of their job if they want to sell me hardware.

by bitL 4y ago

ronsor 4y ago

Alternativer take: vendors should get their drivers upstreamed so they don't have to maintain them much. Of course, this also means publishing decent hardware documentation which they should be doing regardless. Windows did have and to some extent still has many crappy, old drivers that reduce system stability. We don't need to encourage that on Linux.

themoonisachees 4y ago
What is in it for the maintainers who would then have to support hardware they do not neccessarly have access to, adding development time to the linux kernel maintainers who honestly would be better off spending their time improving linux further instead of supporting potentially thousands of users at best? Imo the responisibility lies with the hardware vendors. Sell your hardware with working software, and support it for x years guaranteed. When the support period ends they can decide to extend it (they wont, but they could) instead of relying on developers who have nothing to do with the product and are working for free for the hardware vendor. Either that or contract kernel maintainers to upstream it for x years and they do the heavy lifting, but that's always going to be more expensive than doing it in-house.
- happymellon 4y ago
  Why do these things have to be mutually exclusive? They already hire kernel hackers to build their drivers and bespoke images in the first place.
- TheLoafOfBread 4y ago
  This is exactly what I am struggling with as well - what's the point of having it in the upstream, when developers CAN'T TEST THE DRIVER WITH THE DEVICE. Just provide some stable API for drivers and let hardware developers do their job. Microsoft Windows understood this, why is it so difficult for Linux Kernel do get the memo.
karteum 4y ago
> Alternativer take: vendors should get their drivers upstreamed so they don't have to maintain them much This is ideology. In real-life, some OEMs are binded by NDAs (so they can't do all what they'd like), and the split between hardware and software is quite blurry (chipset vendors don't want to disclose their secrets by open-sourcing their code). I wish like you that more code would be supported in mainline kernel (just as I wish every single board would support SystemReady/UEFI or any similar solution (ideally more lightweight) so that they could boot a generic kernel just like x86 does (and regardless of the availability of the proper dts for this specific board, which may be hard to download after several years)). But this is not the world we live in. Because of this "stable-api-nonsense" ideology, we end up with piles of junk (e.g. all old smartphones and boards that become unsupported after 2-3 years... and we only have one planet !) while we can still easily use 10-15 years-old PCs.
- cromka 4y ago
  > This is ideology. In real-life, some OEMs are binded by NDAs (so they can't do all what they'd like) This can be solved by offering a binary firmware, can it not?

Mave83 4y ago

Make it open source, let it be merged in the Linux kernel, and be happy. I don't want windows and exactly this outdated shit. I want Linux and vendors that understand, that software is part of their job if they want to sell me hardware.