Linked by shmerl on Wed 27th Jul 2011 20:51 UTC
Permalink for comment 482547
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2011-01-28
umccullough,
"I used to feel similarly - but I've come to realize that hardware manufacturers have basically become the decision makers for which OSes live and die... I'm not sure it's 'much better' as a result."
It's worse than that. The binary drivers are usually version dependent (thanks to linus' vision that ABIs are bad).
I maintain a custom linux kernel with AUFS patches and I already have to choose kernels by compatibility with AUFS (which has been rejected by mainline). Luckily I don't need graphics on these kernels, but if I did my initial impression is that it'd be even more difficult finding a combination of kernels/binaries/patches that work together.
It would be nice if there was more kernel API/ABI stability such that compatibility would be less of an issue.