To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
"Yeah, but you do know that that is a very idealistic if not arrogant point of view, right?"
Linux, by its very nature of being Free, is entirely idealistic. It is this idealism that has brought us as a community as far as we are in terms of features, speed, and stability. It is this idealism that will push us even further in the coming generations.
"Not everybody can or wants the driver in the mainline kernel, given the nature of the GPL."
Eh? Just because it's in the mainline kernel doesn't mean it's necessarily GPL on its own. Many drivers in the kernel are under a dual BSD/GPL or MIT/GPL license. That is, if you removed them from the kernel and used them in a standalone fashion in your software, you could then write the software complying to the BSD or MIT licenses (therefore perhaps making it proprietary).
Yeah, but you do know that that is a very idealistic if not arrogant point of view, right? Not everybody can or wants the driver in the mainline kernel, given the nature of the GPL.
No. This is a very simple equation. Most of the linux drivers are in the tree. Only a few, specially closed-source drivers, are out of the tree.
So Linux just optimizes their work. It'd be stupid to optimize the workflow and spent time creating a maintaining a binary kernel ABI if most of the driver do not need an ABI at all.
http://www4.osnews.com/permalink?239517
http://www4.osnews.com/permalink?239553
You were already refuted once, and the same still stands true. You still haven't responded. Give it a rest, posting the same biased opinion piece over and over won't make it true.





Member since:
2006-01-07
You mean a stable in-kernel API? That's nonsense; and here's why: http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/stable_api_nonsense.html