3 ms·

I've swung over the last few years from thinking it's manufacturers' fault to realising that most of the fault here lies with the linux project itself. They're

I've swung over the last few years from thinking it's manufacturers' fault to realising that most of the fault here lies with the linux project itself. They're the ones who have normalised constant churn and thus needing to keep drivers for hardware, sometimes many years old, up to date year after year or even month after month. After seeing the churn mentality affect everything mainly spreading from web dev circles to the rest of the ecosystem, it's hard not to identify that trend as having been the norm in the kernel for decades. I've only come to realise that blaming manufacturers for failing to keep up to date with a constantly moving target was totally unfair.

mschuster91 3y ago
> I've only come to realise that blaming manufacturers for failing to keep up to date with a constantly moving target was totally unfair. The intention of keeping the kernel moving and unstable at the inner layer is intentional: it is a negative incentive to make people at least publish documentation, if not outright publish driver source code, in the open. The userspace-facing layer of Linux has remained very VERY stable over the decades, no matter the consequences [1]. [1] https://archive.fosdem.org/2016/schedule/event/design_linux_kernel_api/ https://archive.fosdem.org/2016/schedule/event/design_linux_...
eep_social 3y ago
Sorry but your claim is that Linux is the driver of churn?! That’s a wild thought. Hard for me to imagine how Linux could be more responsible that the incentives of capitalism, eg planned obsolescence, the race to the bottom, and consumer demand for more and better cameras, storage, etc.
- noobermin 3y ago
  I didn't claim that it birthed it but that the same issue I see in the unsustainability in software today is literally the norm in the kernel. If it's bad in one domain, perhaps it's reasonable to question its value in the other.
pjmlp 3y ago
Yes, ideology has a price.
ylyn 3y ago
> They're the ones who have normalised constant churn and thus needing to keep drivers for hardware, sometimes many years old, up to date year after year or even month after month. That's exactly why you should mainline your code. Then people refactoring other subsystems will fix your code for you.

mschuster91 3y ago

> I've only come to realise that blaming manufacturers for failing to keep up to date with a constantly moving target was totally unfair. The intention of keeping the kernel moving and unstable at the inner layer is intentional: it is a negative incentive to make people at least publish documentation, if not outright publish driver source code, in the open. The userspace-facing layer of Linux has remained very VERY stable over the decades, no matter the consequences [1]. [1] https://archive.fosdem.org/2016/schedule/event/design_linux_kernel_api/ https://archive.fosdem.org/2016/schedule/event/design_linux_...

eep_social 3y ago

Sorry but your claim is that Linux is the driver of churn?! That’s a wild thought. Hard for me to imagine how Linux could be more responsible that the incentives of capitalism, eg planned obsolescence, the race to the bottom, and consumer demand for more and better cameras, storage, etc.

noobermin 3y ago
I didn't claim that it birthed it but that the same issue I see in the unsustainability in software today is literally the norm in the kernel. If it's bad in one domain, perhaps it's reasonable to question its value in the other.

pjmlp 3y ago

Yes, ideology has a price.

ylyn 3y ago

> They're the ones who have normalised constant churn and thus needing to keep drivers for hardware, sometimes many years old, up to date year after year or even month after month. That's exactly why you should mainline your code. Then people refactoring other subsystems will fix your code for you.