3 ms·
At the same time it is not that convincing point because in lot of cases the value from freezing is pretty small for kernel compared to other software, because
by zokier 3y ago
At the same time it is not that convincing point because in lot of cases the value from freezing is pretty small for kernel compared to other software, because kernels strong "do not break userspace" attitude. Version freezing is far more valuable for various other projects that do not take backwards compatibility that seriously.
- mbreese 3y agoI thought the Linux kernel had a strong “don’t break userspace” attitude, but it was a free for all in kernel space. If you’re developing kernel modules or have custom hardware with drivers, I could see having a backported kernel as being a major problem for support and development.
- pxc 3y agoMy (spectator's) understanding is that ABI compatibility is not a priority for kernelspace in Linux, but there is care taken for backwards compatibility in other ways (like at an API level). You're just expected to recompile your out-of-tree kernel modules when there's a new kernel version.
- comex 3y agoNope, API compatibility is also explicitly disavowed: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/stable-api-nonsense.rst https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/lin...
- pxc 3y agoThank you for sharing this! Nothing helps you remember a fact like having been wrong about it in public. :)