4 ms·

I'm a little confused. Are Linus (and Alan, Ingo and even Ted Ts'o) arguing that the GNOME team experiences breakages because they ignored the kernel team pract

I'm a little confused. Are Linus (and Alan, Ingo and even Ted Ts'o) arguing that the GNOME team experiences breakages because they ignored the kernel team practices and used internal interfaces instead of the public ones? Also why do they refer to GNOME as a "research" project?

microtherion 14y ago
No, they're arguing that the GNOME team defends breaking (GNOME) public APIs by arguing that the kernel team does not hesitate to break internal APIs, instead of recognising that actual public Linux APIs are highly stable.
- recoiledsnake 14y ago
  It's a bit more nuanced than that. Miguel(the founder of Gnome but was uninvolved since 5 years) said that the culture of Linux was to break things(see driver ABI) and then use the fact that the driver source is available for most drivers to get around that and just recompile them with changes. And that the userland adopted that practice(see autoconf) and led to fragmentation of the software platform with library hell, leading to commercial software staying away for the most part. As you say, others responded with external vs. internal interfaces, but what is an external and internal interface for things like Gnome or KDE? They have only one API that's used by both their other libraries/applications and application writers.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    "They have only one API that's used by both their other libraries/applications and application writers." Which is a problem they without doubt did not inherit from the kernel team. There is little doubt that the GNOME guys have been using kernel practices to justify their actions. The point being made here is that they are wrong to do so.
    - recoiledsnake 14y ago
      >Which is a problem they without doubt did not inherit from the kernel team. Interesting point, Windows, OS X, iOS etc. get derided for having internal private APIs that they try to prevent external devs from using, and not doing the same thing is now a 'problem' for GNOME and KDE? Isn't the whole point of Linux for developers, freedom to use it as you see fit?
      - CodeMage 14y ago
        Isn't the whole point of Linux for developers, freedom to use it as you see fit? I've yet to hear of a philosophy that allows you to both 1) use everything as you see fit, even things marked as "internal" or "private" and 2) give you the right to complain about your software getting broken because you relied on things marked as "internal" or "private". In other words, you can either restrict yourself to the published APIs and demand compatibility or you can use the guts of the system and have no expectations of stability when the guts change.
        wamatt 14y ago
        Allowing the public to use API calls marked as private, with the understanding it may change at short notice, actually seems like a good compromise.
        recoiledsnake 14y ago
        How many things can you mark as private in an application GUI toolkit like Gnome or KDE/Qt and make them available to your own applications? Private/public API doesn't really make sense for GUI or sound libraries.
      - jlgreco 14y ago
        Regardless of what you think of them not having a stable "external" ABI, it is something they did not get from the kernel team.
      - Evbn 14y ago
mark_integerdsv 14y ago
Does it really matter? To my mind this argument is the greatest argument against OSS for anything but hobbyist application. To see the Gurus of the Linux world squabbling like this makes it abundantly clear why this format will never take on the established desktop OS.
- kaonashi 14y ago
  I'd hardly call the platform running most of the web useless for anything but hobbyist application. And yes, figuring out why Linux soars on servers but stagnates on the desktop is a question worth finding an answer for. Why does public debate disqualify a technology?

microtherion 14y ago

No, they're arguing that the GNOME team defends breaking (GNOME) public APIs by arguing that the kernel team does not hesitate to break internal APIs, instead of recognising that actual public Linux APIs are highly stable.

recoiledsnake 14y ago
It's a bit more nuanced than that. Miguel(the founder of Gnome but was uninvolved since 5 years) said that the culture of Linux was to break things(see driver ABI) and then use the fact that the driver source is available for most drivers to get around that and just recompile them with changes. And that the userland adopted that practice(see autoconf) and led to fragmentation of the software platform with library hell, leading to commercial software staying away for the most part. As you say, others responded with external vs. internal interfaces, but what is an external and internal interface for things like Gnome or KDE? They have only one API that's used by both their other libraries/applications and application writers.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  "They have only one API that's used by both their other libraries/applications and application writers." Which is a problem they without doubt did not inherit from the kernel team. There is little doubt that the GNOME guys have been using kernel practices to justify their actions. The point being made here is that they are wrong to do so.
  - recoiledsnake 14y ago
    >Which is a problem they without doubt did not inherit from the kernel team. Interesting point, Windows, OS X, iOS etc. get derided for having internal private APIs that they try to prevent external devs from using, and not doing the same thing is now a 'problem' for GNOME and KDE? Isn't the whole point of Linux for developers, freedom to use it as you see fit?
    - CodeMage 14y ago
      Isn't the whole point of Linux for developers, freedom to use it as you see fit? I've yet to hear of a philosophy that allows you to both 1) use everything as you see fit, even things marked as "internal" or "private" and 2) give you the right to complain about your software getting broken because you relied on things marked as "internal" or "private". In other words, you can either restrict yourself to the published APIs and demand compatibility or you can use the guts of the system and have no expectations of stability when the guts change.
      - wamatt 14y ago
        Allowing the public to use API calls marked as private, with the understanding it may change at short notice, actually seems like a good compromise.
        recoiledsnake 14y ago
        How many things can you mark as private in an application GUI toolkit like Gnome or KDE/Qt and make them available to your own applications? Private/public API doesn't really make sense for GUI or sound libraries.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      Regardless of what you think of them not having a stable "external" ABI, it is something they did not get from the kernel team.
    - Evbn 14y ago

mark_integerdsv 14y ago

Does it really matter? To my mind this argument is the greatest argument against OSS for anything but hobbyist application. To see the Gurus of the Linux world squabbling like this makes it abundantly clear why this format will never take on the established desktop OS.

kaonashi 14y ago
I'd hardly call the platform running most of the web useless for anything but hobbyist application. And yes, figuring out why Linux soars on servers but stagnates on the desktop is a question worth finding an answer for. Why does public debate disqualify a technology?