6 ms·

That should be true for everything, if no one has written drivers for something it won't work. But once driver is added will it fail/updated for newer versions

That should be true for everything, if no one has written drivers for something it won't work. But once driver is added will it fail/updated for newer versions of Linux?

zamadatix 2y ago
It depends on how open the particular drivers are implemented. E.g. over the last couple of years the Nvidia driver situation for cards from the last 3 generations has changed across pretty much all 3 major levels: 1. Originally you had to use the proprietary binary driver to get anything useful to happen with your card at all. Updating the kernel without updating this would more or less lead to having an expensive brick in your PC. Some Wi-Fi adapters fall into the "can't really be updated" category as well. A _LOT_ of ARM shit is like this. 2. nvidia-open came along (still beta for desktop cards at the moment) and it puts enough in the kernel that you can update the kernel without needing an updated binary driver for your card to function 3. nouveau/nvk have very recently started to come to a decently usable state (i.e. they have reclocking via GSP and somewhat usable graphics API coverage/efficiency) for an even more open driver stack which tracks system updates even better. If your binary blobs fall into 1/2 then long term upgrades can be anywhere from impossible to unreliable. If they fall into 2/3 they can be anywhere from somewhat reliable to "will be working longer than any sane person would still be trying to update the kernel on that device". E.g. the AMD 7750 is 12 years old but can run OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan via the latest AMDGPU driver in mainline mesa/kernel. LTS distros solve this by using LTS kernels and security patching them rather than requiring "actual" underlying OS updates during the version lifecycle.
chem83 2y ago
The reality is that drivers are not added, as you say. Most companies release an out-of-tree BSP targeting a specific kernel version. They often contain blobs and are often not GPL. Linux doesn't support a stable kernel ABI/API (https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/process/stable-api-nonsense.rst https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/process/stable-api-...) and the only way to avoid the associated issues is to mainline drivers, which most companies don't want to do (don't want to open source their IP, don't want to invest in maintaining it etc.) Android GKI/KMI addresses the issues related to this. GKI is relatively recent and OEMs don't offer 5+ years of Android updates because they haven't adopted it yet.
- codedokode 2y ago
  That Linux note about why they don't want a stable API is ridiculous. This shows how unfriendly is Linux to out-of-tree software. They want third-party developers to refactor their working and tested drivers every time they decide to change something. I think that at least open source community should move to "never break things" concept. So that you can write and test code once and never touch it anymore. Refactoring your code because kernel/library has changed its interface is just a waste of time which gives nothing in return, often time of unpaid volunteers who could do something useful instead. This should apply to libraries, applications, programming languages, browser extensions. Take upgrading your Python 2 code to Python 3 as an example. You need to put a lot of efforts while gaining nothing. This is not how software should work. You should write a code once and it should work forever without any maintainance.
  - guitarlimeo 2y ago
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the actual code itself is stable, just that the compiled kernel API/ABI isn't. So if you open source your drivers and get them accepted into the kernel, then you don't need to rewrite/recompile them for each new kernel version. Just like AMD did with their drivers. And I think this is part a conscious decision that forces people to open source drivers. But this is honestly just guesswork based on what I've read, would love to learn more!
    - afiori 2y ago
      > So if you open source your drivers and get them accepted into the kernel, then you don't need to rewrite[...] them for each new kernel version. You don't, but someone does. In the note linked above they give an example of how the USB interface changed from synchronous to asynchronous, this must have required some refactoring in all drivers that used USB
      - vetinari 2y ago
        That someone updating the drivers is exactly the same person who makes the change in the subsystem that they depend on. They cannot break what is already in the kernel, but they can break what's outside; it is after all an internal API.
fooker 2y ago
If the kernel had a stable ABI and made it a bit easier for closed source drivers to access kernel APIs, yes. That's how you can use a random 25 year old peripheral on multiple versions of Windows without anyone having to update a driver.
- realusername 2y ago
  In theory maybe, in practice I'd bet in a better Linux support on a 25 year old peripheral compared to Windows.
  - fooker 2y ago
    Out of the box, sure. For windows you can usually download a binary from some 20 year old website and it'll work.
- vetinari 2y ago
  That's also how you make windows ship with three different USB stacks and their weird interaction.
  - fooker 2y ago
    For sure. The real world of devices is messy. Avoiding that mess for some notion of beauty or purity only gets you so far.

That should be true for everything, if no one has written drivers for something it won't work. But once driver is added will it fail/updated for newer versions of Linux?

zamadatix 2y ago

It depends on how open the particular drivers are implemented. E.g. over the last couple of years the Nvidia driver situation for cards from the last 3 generations has changed across pretty much all 3 major levels: 1. Originally you had to use the proprietary binary driver to get anything useful to happen with your card at all. Updating the kernel without updating this would more or less lead to having an expensive brick in your PC. Some Wi-Fi adapters fall into the "can't really be updated" category as well. A _LOT_ of ARM shit is like this. 2. nvidia-open came along (still beta for desktop cards at the moment) and it puts enough in the kernel that you can update the kernel without needing an updated binary driver for your card to function 3. nouveau/nvk have very recently started to come to a decently usable state (i.e. they have reclocking via GSP and somewhat usable graphics API coverage/efficiency) for an even more open driver stack which tracks system updates even better. If your binary blobs fall into 1/2 then long term upgrades can be anywhere from impossible to unreliable. If they fall into 2/3 they can be anywhere from somewhat reliable to "will be working longer than any sane person would still be trying to update the kernel on that device". E.g. the AMD 7750 is 12 years old but can run OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan via the latest AMDGPU driver in mainline mesa/kernel. LTS distros solve this by using LTS kernels and security patching them rather than requiring "actual" underlying OS updates during the version lifecycle.

chem83 2y ago

The reality is that drivers are not added, as you say. Most companies release an out-of-tree BSP targeting a specific kernel version. They often contain blobs and are often not GPL. Linux doesn't support a stable kernel ABI/API (https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/process/stable-api-nonsense.rst https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/process/stable-api-...) and the only way to avoid the associated issues is to mainline drivers, which most companies don't want to do (don't want to open source their IP, don't want to invest in maintaining it etc.) Android GKI/KMI addresses the issues related to this. GKI is relatively recent and OEMs don't offer 5+ years of Android updates because they haven't adopted it yet.

codedokode 2y ago
That Linux note about why they don't want a stable API is ridiculous. This shows how unfriendly is Linux to out-of-tree software. They want third-party developers to refactor their working and tested drivers every time they decide to change something. I think that at least open source community should move to "never break things" concept. So that you can write and test code once and never touch it anymore. Refactoring your code because kernel/library has changed its interface is just a waste of time which gives nothing in return, often time of unpaid volunteers who could do something useful instead. This should apply to libraries, applications, programming languages, browser extensions. Take upgrading your Python 2 code to Python 3 as an example. You need to put a lot of efforts while gaining nothing. This is not how software should work. You should write a code once and it should work forever without any maintainance.
- guitarlimeo 2y ago
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the actual code itself is stable, just that the compiled kernel API/ABI isn't. So if you open source your drivers and get them accepted into the kernel, then you don't need to rewrite/recompile them for each new kernel version. Just like AMD did with their drivers. And I think this is part a conscious decision that forces people to open source drivers. But this is honestly just guesswork based on what I've read, would love to learn more!
  - afiori 2y ago
    > So if you open source your drivers and get them accepted into the kernel, then you don't need to rewrite[...] them for each new kernel version. You don't, but someone does. In the note linked above they give an example of how the USB interface changed from synchronous to asynchronous, this must have required some refactoring in all drivers that used USB
    - vetinari 2y ago
      That someone updating the drivers is exactly the same person who makes the change in the subsystem that they depend on. They cannot break what is already in the kernel, but they can break what's outside; it is after all an internal API.

fooker 2y ago

If the kernel had a stable ABI and made it a bit easier for closed source drivers to access kernel APIs, yes. That's how you can use a random 25 year old peripheral on multiple versions of Windows without anyone having to update a driver.

realusername 2y ago
In theory maybe, in practice I'd bet in a better Linux support on a 25 year old peripheral compared to Windows.
- fooker 2y ago
  Out of the box, sure. For windows you can usually download a binary from some 20 year old website and it'll work.
vetinari 2y ago
That's also how you make windows ship with three different USB stacks and their weird interaction.
- fooker 2y ago
  For sure. The real world of devices is messy. Avoiding that mess for some notion of beauty or purity only gets you so far.