Greg Kroah-Hartman has put the slides and a transcript to his keynote at OLS online. The title speaks volumes: "Myths, Lies, and Truths about the Linux kernel". He starts off: "I'm going to discuss the a number of different lies that people always say about the kernel and try to debunk them; go over a few truths that aren't commonly known, and discuss some myths that I hear repeated a lot."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-02-15
If most kernel developers wanted a stable API then there would be a stable API but obviously that's not the case.
Believe me, Linux kernel development rules aren't set by a majority vote. Nor is it "obvious" that "most" don't want stable APIs.
I'm unaware of any survey of any sort of what "most" kernel developers want.
I'm also not calling for one. Linux is Linus' toy, and he can play with it anyway he wants.
I'm just trying to point out some problems in claims people have made about the consequences of the development model, and, in this case, some errors in assertions Greg made in his keynote.
Member since:2005-07-07
I'm unaware of any survey of any sort of what "most" kernel developers want.
I'll concede that point but I would say that the kernel developers that provide most of the code do not want a stable API. If they did then they would code it that way.
I'm just trying to point out some problems in claims people have made about the consequences of the development model, and, in this case, some errors in assertions Greg made in his keynote.
I'm just trying to point out the problems with the claims people make about how a stable API will benefit Linux when in fact it will hurt Linux. Allowing binary drivers will not only destroy the whole concept of having a free system, but it will destroy the kernel itself. No longer will it be small, clean, and fast. It will be just like windows, big, messy, and inefficient.
Member since:2006-02-15
I'm just trying to point out the problems with the claims people make about how a stable API will benefit Linux when in fact it will hurt Linux. Allowing binary drivers will not only destroy the whole concept of having a free system, but it will destroy the kernel itself.
"binary drivers" is not the same as "stable APIs", and the reality of the system is that without binary drivers, mostly in the form of graphics drivers, Linux penetration would be a tiny fraction of what it is now.
No longer will it be small, clean, and fast. It will be just like windows, big, messy, and inefficient.
It is big, messy, and inefficient. It's been getting bigger, messier, and more inefficient for at least the last five years. Recent 2.6 has slower networking, for example, than earlier releases of 2.6 did. On some systems, with identical hardware, I've seen factors of two slowdown between 2.6.8 and 2.6.14.
If you want small, clean, and fast, take a hard look at plan 9.
Member since:
2005-07-07
I'm a kernel developer and I want stable APIs. One gets tired of having to change a driver every couple of weeks because someone randomly changed the argument list to some interface, and yes, there have been periods in which the interface breakage was pretty random.
All I said is that kernel developers don't expect hardware vendors to supply drivers, just open specs. How you changed the argument to kernel developers wanting a stable API no one knows.
If most kernel developers wanted a stable API then there would be a stable API but obviously that's not the case.