3 ms·
I would actually posture that making it easier to make drivers would actually have the opposite effect and result in more FOSS drivers. >FreeBSD (which is ofte
by charcircuit 1y ago
I would actually posture that making it easier to make drivers would actually have the opposite effect and result in more FOSS drivers.
>FreeBSD (which is often invoked in these complaints) would have amdgpu for example.
In such a hypothetical FreeBSD could reimplement the stable API of Linux.
- throw0101d 1y ago> In such a hypothetical FreeBSD could reimplement the stable API of Linux. Like it does with the userland API of Linux, which is stable: * https://wiki.freebsd.org/Linuxulator https://wiki.freebsd.org/Linuxulator
- smcameron 1y agoNo, every gpu vendor out there would prefer proprietary drivers and with a stable ABI, they could do it, and would do, there is no question about it. I worked for HP on storage drivers for a decade or so, and had their been a stable ABI, HP would have shipped proprietary storage drivers for everything. Even without a stable ABI, they shipped proprietary drivers at considerable effort, compiling for myriad different distro kernels. It was a nightmare, and good thing too, or there wouldn't be any open source drivers.
- charcircuit 1y agoI never said they wouldn't. Having more and better drivers is a good thing for Linux users. It's okay for proprietary drivers to exist. The kernel isn't meant to be a vehicle to push the free software agenda.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- msgodel 1y agoIt's plenty easy to make drivers now, it's just hard to distribute them without sharing the source. There is absolutely no good reason not to share driver source though so that's a terrible use case to optimize for.