3 ms·
From what I've gathered it's the clowns in suits thinking that putting drivers in kernel instead of behind NDA is some kind of "competitive advantage". Other r
by ilyt 4y ago
From what I've gathered it's the clowns in suits thinking that putting drivers in kernel instead of behind NDA is some kind of "competitive advantage".
Other reason is that kernel requires some minimal level of code quality and many of the closed source ones are basically "the minimum to make the customer use case work"
Yet another reason is just not wanting to bother with more than bare minimum for chip that will be in market few years and replaced with something newer
- swinglock 4y agoIronically this seemingly widespread issue makes the opposite even more true. That is, working correctly with Linux without patches would be a differentiator and a competitive advantage.
- fexecve 4y ago> Other reason is that kernel requires some minimal level of code quality and many of the closed source ones are basically "the minimum to make the customer use case work" I think this is the real, actual reason. Having worked in embedded for a long time, the coding horrors are endless and routine. There's no way 99.99% of embedded software would ever pass the kernel's strict code quality standards. It's easier to just ship a "bastardized" (as others here are calling it) patched kernel.