Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 29th Nov 2008 21:22 UTC
Linux Even though there are a lot of happy people using Apple's iPhone very happily, there's also a group of people who are not so happy, most likely because of Apple's rather strict policies regarding applications and developers. While most of these people would just jailbreak the thing, some take it a step further - by installing another operating system. Yes, Linux now runs on the iPhone (1st gen/2nd gen, and the 1st gen iPod Touch).
E-mail Print r 3   · Read More · 68 Comment(s)
Thread beginning with comment 338718
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Wha?
by darknexus on Sat 29th Nov 2008 23:38 UTC in reply to "Wha?"
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

Ah, I detect sarcasm ;) .
There's any number of things I'd love to say on this topic. But, knowing everyone here, I'm going to get flamed if I dare to blaspheme... oh, what the heck I'll say it anyway.
Why? While people in the Linux community are porting it from device to device to device... and yet to more devices, major issues remain unsolved. No stable API. No stable ABI. No standardization across distributions--and please, don't give me that "LSB will solve everything" baloney. No standard way of installing packages--we have how many different package managers and repositories now, with their own little quirks and dependencies? I guess that's the great thing about Linux, everyone can just blame everyone else since "that's not what we're working with." The kernel folks can blame the driver manufacturers while ignoring the real problem--if you had a stable API and ABI whether the driver is proprietary or open source wouldn't matter worth a damn. The driver would work. Come on guys, Solaris has gotten this right for years now. I can take a driver for Solaris 10 and install it, in binary form without access to the source code, on any of the builds of Opensolaris (what will become Solaris 11) and guess what, the driver works. The desktop developers can point the finger at any number of stacks under them in the chain, saying it's not their problem, meanwhile everyone underneath them is pointing right back, saying they have to fix it on their ends since it works fine and they're just not using the correct functions. And then meanwhile we have people porting Linux to their freaking toasters, and who knows what else.
I guess my point is, why is it being ported to the iPhone when these major issues remain completely unacknowledged? You guys want Linux to be the operating system of choice, and I respect that. I wouldn't necessarily object to this happening either. But please, stop worrying about every little device and get some of the baseline together. Then get Linux ported on to every bloody device on the market, if you want. You'll be in a much better position to do it, that's for sure, and you might actually achieve your goal of everything just working out of the box.
I don't expect anyone in the Linux community to listen... but it felt really, really good to say that!

Reply Parent Score: 11

RE[2]: Wha?
by Ford Prefect on Sat 29th Nov 2008 23:59 in reply to "RE: Wha?"
Ford Prefect Member since:
2006-01-16

So, essentially, you are telling the folks who port Linux to the iPhone: Stop doing that! Fix my issues first!

But, ya know, those folks don't give a shit about your issues. Because they are not issues to them. The issue they currently resolve is to bring Linux to the iPhone. That's what they are interested in, that's what they are doing.

Why blame them? Because they just don't have any feelings about the driver API? Because that part just already works for them?

And guess what: It works for me, too. I don't need any proprietary driver to work with any awesome stable driver API. All I need is a stable userspace API and good quality open source drivers, both already provided.

If it doesn't work for you: Too bad. Fix it or leave it. There is nobody paid for painfully maintaining a stable driver API in Linux, so nobody does it. People can live with that, and surprisingly well so. It is wrong to claim that Linux has so many issues. Look at all these thousands of use-cases and systems it runs on already.

Reply Parent Score: 12

RE[3]: Wha?
by darknexus on Sun 30th Nov 2008 00:16 in reply to "RE[2]: Wha?"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Ah, the old "works for me, so screw you" response the Linux community is so fond of. You do realize that it is those like you who make Linux users look snobbish and rude, right?
I am not saying "fix my issues first." In fact, most of the open source drivers work for me, too, and I'm able to get around what does not. But the approach linux is taking is dead-ended and is leading to horrible fragmentation. Further, it is not developer friendly. note, I said developer-friendly, not hacker-friendly. Everything is hacker-friendly, regardless of what it is, it can be hacked, and bravo for them. But, if you want application developers and driver developers to pick up your platform, you need a consistent base. Until it can be guaranteed that an application developed for Linux will run on Linux, and not break with the next minor point release of glibc or the kernel, then you're on your way to having a platform, and not a mishmash of parts.
I realize that the current way is fine for open source. But guess how many people actually care about that? Look at Linux's market share and that should tell you. But having a stable base is fine for everybody, not just open source, and that, I would think, would be the best of all worlds.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: Wha?
by mmu_man on Sun 30th Nov 2008 00:05 in reply to "RE: Wha?"
mmu_man Member since:
2006-09-30

Exactly, just like with BeOS and Haiku which share a clean and stable DDI.
I've been ranting about it for years...
And the "this will help hw vendors evade the GPL" reason is totally ridiculous.
It just impairs people developing external drivers like OSS4.

Reply Parent Score: 5

v RE[3]: Wha?
by CrLf on Sun 30th Nov 2008 14:53 in reply to "RE[2]: Wha?"
RE[2]: Wha?
by cyclops on Sun 30th Nov 2008 02:42 in reply to "RE: Wha?"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

Ah, I detect sarcasm ;) .
There's any number of things I'd love to say on this topic. But, knowing everyone here, I'm going to get flamed if I dare to blaspheme... oh, what the heck I'll say it anyway.
Why? While people in the Linux community are porting it from device to device to device... and yet to more devices, major issues remain unsolved. No stable API. No stable ABI. No standardization across distributions--and please, don't give me that "LSB will solve everything" baloney. No standard way of installing packages--we have how many different package managers and repositories now, with their own little quirks and dependencies? I guess that's the great thing about Linux, everyone can just blame everyone else since "that's not what we're working with." The kernel folks can blame the driver manufacturers while ignoring the real problem--if you had a stable API and ABI whether the driver is proprietary or open source wouldn't matter worth a damn. The driver would work. Come on guys, Solaris has gotten this right for years now. I can take a driver for Solaris 10 and install it, in binary form without access to the source code, on any of the builds of Opensolaris (what will become Solaris 11) and guess what, the driver works. The desktop developers can point the finger at any number of stacks under them in the chain, saying it's not their problem, meanwhile everyone underneath them is pointing right back, saying they have to fix it on their ends since it works fine and they're just not using the correct functions. And then meanwhile we have people porting Linux to their freaking toasters, and who knows what else.
I guess my point is, why is it being ported to the iPhone when these major issues remain completely unacknowledged? You guys want Linux to be the operating system of choice, and I respect that. I wouldn't necessarily object to this happening either. But please, stop worrying about every little device and get some of the baseline together. Then get Linux ported on to every bloody device on the market, if you want. You'll be in a much better position to do it, that's for sure, and you might actually achieve your goal of everything just working out of the box.
I don't expect anyone in the Linux community to listen... but it felt really, really good to say that!


1) Seriously that is difficult to read without it being put into paragraphs

2) This is a flame...a fun flame but nonetheless a flame

I suspect you are being deliberately naive about what the "Linux Community is" your on OSNEWS for gods sake they even hate each other, and there are articles upon articles about this, but generally the answer is fulfill their needs not yours, or MONEY, and this has a filer down effect to the rest of us.

Stable API...seriously I don't care I've never met a user who does, but if your talking about Linux standards you understand the PROs and CONs, pick a side, I'm personally quite happy with evolution picking standards especially when evolution brings me a better product.

Personally I would love a device that is supported under linux as an MP3 player. I've been hungry for one for sometime I was gearing up for an Openmoko but untill the GPS is fixed I'll pass. Something running rockbox would be ideal, but much like this project it will lag behind the proper release.

Now I can say why I want Linux on an Portable Media Player/Mobile Phone if you don't then you should look seriously at one of the major advantages of the platform, That is evolution if you want the latest greatest version you do so at the click of a button. You are not tied to the hardware. Look at Vista users on there 2 year old RTM OS and have to buy a machine to get it...only a real idiot would get a retail copy of 64bit Ultimate, or those who continually upgrade their ipods. Rather than buying an item for the properties in the hardware.

The bottom line is my Linux experience continues to improve dramatically while Vista users have to wait years, and then experience massive regressions.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Wha?
by StephenBeDoper on Sun 30th Nov 2008 02:53 in reply to "RE: Wha?"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

I guess my point is, why is it being ported to the iPhone when these major issues remain completely unacknowledged?


What's the connection - why are those things mutually-exclusive? It's not as if there's some sort of central Linux authority that has said "you developers must work on an iPhone port of Linux, instead of standardizing package management or creating a stable driver API/ABI."

Developers are also not interchangeable. You can't just assume that a developer working on Linux on the iPhone would have the necessary abilities/specialty to fix the problems that you described.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: Wha?
by SirYes on Sun 30th Nov 2008 06:50 in reply to "RE: Wha?"
SirYes Member since:
2007-03-12

@darknexus: No, I won't flame you, and many of your points are valid, but you're missing one thing. Linux is where it is BEACUSE of its unfriendliness to proprietary, binary-only drivers. The most compatibility is on the source code level. If you want the whole thing (kernel and programs) to run on another architecture, the code just needs to be recompiled, and sometimes tweaked (ported) as well. But it's doable.


The kernel folks can blame the driver manufacturers while ignoring the real problem--if you had a stable API and ABI whether the driver is proprietary or open source wouldn't matter worth a damn. The driver would work.

And think for how many architectures the proprietary drivers would be supported? Would they support PPC, CELL, z/Architecture and ARM processors? I understand YOU may not need it nor use it, but there are folks that do. And they may become pretty angry if their hardware of choice doesn't work because of lack of availability of proprietary drivers.


Come on guys, Solaris has gotten this right for years now. I can take a driver for Solaris 10 and install it, in binary form without access to the source code, on any of the builds of Opensolaris (what will become Solaris 11) and guess what, the driver works.

You're 100% right. I used Solaris 8, 9 and 10 on original Sun Blades and Ultras and there's no problem with this. But such a driver works only on architectures supported by the OS, unfortunately (which means "less than Linux"). I believe that Sun and/or OpenSolaris have access to the driver's source code, that's why it can be recompiled by them. However this still is a problem with proprietary drivers from commercial vendors.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[3]: Wha?
by darknexus on Sun 30th Nov 2008 15:23 in reply to "RE[2]: Wha?"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

@darknexus: No, I won't flame you, and many of your points are valid, but you're missing one thing. Linux is where it is BEACUSE of its unfriendliness to proprietary, binary-only drivers. The most compatibility is on the source code level. If you want the whole thing (kernel and programs) to run on another architecture, the code just needs to be recompiled, and sometimes tweaked (ported) as well. But it's doable.

I think you're slightly missing my point here. I'm aware of the relative ease of porting Linux to other architectures due to it being open source, and this is great for what it is. But by no stretch can we say being unfriendly to proprietary drivers is a good thing. Proprietary drivers would work on the architectures the manufacturer supports, that's true and no one is going to argue differently.
And think for how many architectures the proprietary drivers would be supported? Would they support PPC, CELL, z/Architecture and ARM processors? I understand YOU may not need it nor use it, but there are folks that do. And they may become pretty angry if their hardware of choice doesn't work because of lack of availability of proprietary drivers.

And how is that different from the current situation? There need not be a proprietary driver for which there already is an open source equivalent that works well enough for people. But there is a lot of hardware that there is _no_ driver support for. Isn't manufacturer support better than no support at all? Let's make this clear: being unfriendly to proprietary drivers is not going to force most companies to open their specs and/or driver code. It's simply going to drive them away from your platform. There are exceptions, of course, and some companies have started to open their specs, but I can count them on one hand and the only reason they've done this is they have a vested interest in getting themselves into the Linux realm due to netbooks and other such devices. You seem to be under the impression that Linux be moved entirely to proprietary drivers, which is not at all what I was trying to say. The quality of the open source drivers varies wildly from excellent to downright awful. If Linux were more driver-friendly to manufacturers, then you could have a choice, and isn't that what we all want?
Further, providing stable interfaces would ease the process for manufacturers at writing drivers for various platforms. Provided they don't need to access any machine instructions directly of the target host, they could simply recompile the driver for whatever architecture is needed, and let the kernel do the lower-level work.
You're 100% right. I used Solaris 8, 9 and 10 on original Sun Blades and Ultras and there's no problem with this. But such a driver works only on architectures supported by the OS, unfortunately (which means "less than Linux"). I believe that Sun and/or OpenSolaris have access to the driver's source code, that's why it can be recompiled by them. However this still is a problem with proprietary drivers from commercial vendors.

No, it's not. That is precisely my point, I can take a binary driver (the binary file, no source code or access to it) and drop it into a Solaris system of higher version (10 to 11, or what is now Opensolaris, comes to mind). These drivers still work, no recompiling, No source code access. Drop them into place, run a few devfsadm commands if necessary, and load the module. This sort of thing does not work in Linux, and it is precisely because of a stable API and ABI that it works well in Solaris. You're absolutely right that the architecture of the driver and the target machine must be the same, however, a driver compiled for x86 will not work on SPARC, for example. Often though, the driver simply needs a quick recompile by the manufacturer to work fine and, in this case, Solaris's limited architecture support becomes a boon rather than a bane. There is only three architectures that need be supported, not fifty.

To recap: I'm not saying we should abandon open source drivers for proprietary ones. There are drawbacks to both approaches, and proprietary drivers would only work on the architectures the manufacturers decide to support. But in many cases this would give us more choice than we currently have, and the option to perhaps use a better-quality driver is one we *should* have. Further, this would automatically make open source drivers work better, as they wouldn't need to be recompiled or tweaked every time the kernel internals change. This would be great for open source drivers that, for one reason or another, aren't included in the mainline kernel tree. The API doesn't even have to change if they don't want it to, just freeze it and stabilize it, then stick to it for a while only changing it when a bug is found. Solaris proves this can be done quite well.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Wha?
by CrLf on Sun 30th Nov 2008 15:02 in reply to "RE: Wha?"
CrLf Member since:
2006-01-03

No stable API. No stable ABI.


Linux does have a stable userspace API and ABI. You can still run statically linked binaries from ages ago in current systems. What it does not have is a stable *internal* API/ABI.

Maintaining a stable internal API/ABI for drivers would be a huge task for kernel developers, and it would prevent the kernel from evolving freely.

In the end, whatever people think could be gained from making it easy to have out-of-tree drivers would be negated by the kernel becoming increasingly bloated and cumbersome, and kernel developers loosing interest in contributing.

Do you think the people doing these kind of tasks for the proprietary OSes do it for fun?

It's funny how people complain that Windows is overburden with backward compatibility, but then want Linux to suffer from the same problems.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Wha?
by Bending Unit on Sun 30th Nov 2008 16:43 in reply to "RE[2]: Wha?"
Bending Unit Member since:
2005-07-06

Yep, games and applications works really well after a couple of years.

Loki tried to bring real games to Linux.

They are all defunct today because of whatever technical reason.

Meanwhile the Windows, original versions plays quite well.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Wha?
by tomcat on Sun 30th Nov 2008 18:39 in reply to "RE: Wha?"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

The reason you don't have a stable ABI in Linux is that the kernel folks do not want binary-biased driver integration. It isn't about flexibility. They want you to have to compile your drivers with the distribution. It's about ideology. They want the source code for all drivers to be available to everyone. Which means that driver support will always be second-rate in Linux. Imagine how much better things would be if you had a common ABI across distributions. You could use drivers from ANY distribution for your processor indiscriminately. But, no, the ABIs are constantly in flux, creating an environment which is brittle and unstable. Why? So Stallman can feel good about making sure the driver source code is available? So Torvalds can arbitrarily change the ABI when the whim suits him? C'mon, folks, let's be honest here: this is RIDICULOUS. Somebody should let the grown-ups take over. Oh, and regarding LSB, it's a joke. LSB has had nearly a decade to improve this situation, and it has only taken marginal steps. Everybody claims that "the next version of LSB will make everything better". That's like guerillas in the southern hemisphere claiming that the "next government" will stop poverty and end oppression (i.e. don't hold your breath). Flame me all you want. You know that I'm right.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Wha?
by darknexus on Sun 30th Nov 2008 18:50 in reply to "RE[2]: Wha?"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Agreed, 100%. I doubt it's got anything to do with Stallman feeling good, though, as the kernel has binary firmware blobs in certain drivers. He's already said the Linux kernel, as it stands now, does not hold with his ideas of free software. Personally, I think the man's crazy, but that's neither here nor there. So, we can rule Stallman out as a reason for this situation.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: Wha?
by CrLf on Sun 30th Nov 2008 21:45 in reply to "RE[2]: Wha?"
CrLf Member since:
2006-01-03

Maybe some kernel developers do want to prevent binary drivers for ideological reasons, but for the vast majority that's just a (welcome) side-effect.

Do you have any idea how hard it is to maintain a stable ABI? It isn't only the case of avoiding changes to the interfaces (API), it is a full time job of making sure unrelated changes don't change symbols around thus breaking it.

So, on one hand they would be restrained in how much they can change the kernel insides to accomodate new features, fix bugs, increase performance or just plain refactoring to make the whole thing better. On another hand, someone would have to police the entire thing to make sure nothing breaks. All this while keeping the whole environment interesting enough to attract contributions. One cannot have the cake and eat it too.

There's an interesting paper from Ulrich Drepper about maintaining ABI stability for shared librares which should be read before making claims about ABI stability *inside* the kernel, which is harder.

http://people.redhat.com/drepper/dsohowto.pdf

Edited 2008-11-30 21:46 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Wha?
by silix on Sun 30th Nov 2008 23:06 in reply to "RE[2]: Wha?"
silix Member since:
2006-03-01

The reason you don't have a stable ABI in Linux is that the kernel folks do not want binary-biased driver integration.

exactly... the sad thing is, nobody realizes that making kernel APIs stable (for at least a reasonable assured time-/version- span duration, say... 3 years? ) and encouraging HW manufacture to open their drivers or at least their specs, are different and in fact orthogonal problems...

Which means that driver support will always be second-rate in Linux.

... and that it's not that easy, or reasonable, or "normal" for a HW maker, to even want to care for the users of an OS, that make less than 1% of the market that company caters to (not that they are really obliged... if i state a graphics card of mine specifically is a "DX10 gaming card for windows", if someone manages to use it on maya under linux good for him - but support for unintended use is not due)

nor, in case they care, to entrust some random developer (totally uninvolved with the design of a HW product; and, for what they may assume, uninvolved with the development of similar devices, or drivers for them, or driver development in general) with the IP related to their product, just to let him (try to) write a driver for that device...

the most suitable ones to write device drivers are those working for the manufacturer (and for as overly exceptionally complex a device can be, as in the case of a modern vga, one will just not suffice)
this is a simple but often overlooked fact that does not deny the obvious, is that peer review of code will be important for system level integration, auditing and debugging (but only at that point)

Imagine how much better things would be if you had a common ABI across distributions. You could use drivers from ANY distribution for your processor indiscriminately.

or, you'd have a chance to use a device (e.g. a webcam) as soon as a driver for it (for as broken as it may be) is made available, without the need to draw in a newer kernel
being able to resolve problems caused by the new driver just uninstalling /updating it, instead of reverting the whole system to the previously used kernel, and to avoid the possible regressions or new vulnerabilities inherent to a less mature kernel, may be invaluable...

But, no, the ABIs are constantly in flux, creating an environment which is brittle and unstable.
[...]
C'mon, folks, let's be honest here: this is RIDICULOUS.

it's ironical, even more so when they attempt to pass a political decison for a techinical one, pointing at GCC's incompatiblity with itself across major versions as a major cause of ABI instability in the kernel, as if it were something impossible to obtain... (of course ABI incompatibility between GCC ports for different architectures is understandable and somewhat obvious - though i've often seen it mentioned to justify the above (!)) ...

Somebody should let the grown-ups take over. Oh, and regarding LSB, it's a joke.

i used to have faith in the LSB but then i stumbled upon this: http://www.linuxfoundation.org/en/LSB:PM:Best_Effort_Dynamic_Linkin...

<< Right now, the LSB requires a different dynamic linker than the rest of the system. This linker is often not provided at all on non-LSB systems, and cannot be guaranteed to be available even on distros that can be LSB-compliant (if the LSB environment is not installed).>>

when a spec which is expected to be a common denominator and something all (compliant) linux distributions would be based from an "architectural" perspective, but (by words of its very proponents) turns out to be an optional side by side "environment", loses a lot of credibility in my book...

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Wha?
by Moochman on Mon 1st Dec 2008 12:47 in reply to "RE[2]: Wha?"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

The LSB is better than no LSB.... Say what you want about it, I'm glad that at least we have something.

It's kinda like the United Nations: Kinda ineffective, but I wouldn't want a world without it...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Wha?
by dagw on Sun 30th Nov 2008 21:31 in reply to "RE: Wha?"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

Why? While people in the Linux community are porting it from device to device to device... and yet to more devices, major issues remain unsolved. No stable API. No stable ABI. No standardization across distributions

This port wasn't done by the Linux community, it wasn't done for the Linux community and it wasn't done to advance the Linux community. It was done for kicks by some people who think this sort of thing is a fun way to kill time. Or are you the sort of person who looks down on people who have hobbies, since the world would be better off if they instead donated their time to charity.

There really is no "Linux community" and any argument based around the assumption that there is is inherently flawed.

I guess my point is, why is it being ported to the iPhone

My guess is because a couple of people wanted to know if it could be done and thought it sounded a bit like fun. Have you never done something for fun without worrying about the greater social ramifications? How (and why) should we stop people working on things they find fun and force them to work on things you find important?

when these major issues remain completely unacknowledged?

Perhaps the people who did this (for fun remember) didn't think that tackling those issues sounded like fun.

You guys want Linux to be the operating system of choice

"We guys" want all kinds of things and have nothing that could even approach a cohesive agenda. Some want Linux to become a dominant force in the OS market and knock MS off the throne, while others want a small easy to hack OS that runs on their toaster. Neither is more 'right'. Most of us simply want an OS the fulfill our personal or professional needs, and if that happens to be Linux then great. If not, then there are other OS's out there.

At its heart Linux isn't a company or organization or charity or social movement or anything else even resembling any of those. It's a bunch of source code that people can pick up and use if it fits their need or simply ignored if it doesn't fit their need. Linux doesn't care one way of the other.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Wha?
by sbergman27 on Mon 1st Dec 2008 02:33 in reply to "RE: Wha?"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

The kernel folks can blame the driver manufacturers while ignoring the real problem--if you had a stable API and ABI whether the driver is proprietary or open source wouldn't matter worth a damn. The driver would work. Come on guys, Solaris has gotten this right for years now.

Question: If Sun's strategy is so great compared to the Linux strategy... how come hardware support for Solaris/OpenSolaris is so poor compared to that of Linux? Solaris is about the same age as Linux (1992), and OpenSolaris has been out for a few years.

Despite any theoretical arguments you might have, the Linux strategy has actually *worked* better than the Solaris strategy that you are advocating.

Edited 2008-12-01 02:42 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Wha?
by darknexus on Mon 1st Dec 2008 11:59 in reply to "RE[2]: Wha?"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Actually, strategy doesn't come into play here at all.
Why does Solaris have less drivers? Simple answer: because until recently, there was no vested interest on running Solaris on any hardware but that which Sun endorsed. It is only recently that interest has really arisen in Solaris on general-purpose machines other than SUN workstations and servers. Remember, Solaris was designed as a corporate os for servers and, to some extent, workstations. On the server side, supporting every bit of hardware is less important than supporting a few hardware combinations to their fullest extent. Desktop interest in Solaris has only come about within the past few years.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Wha?
by TechGeek on Mon 1st Dec 2008 15:28 in reply to "RE: Wha?"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

There are a lot of clueless people on this thread. Now I may be one of them, but last time I checked, MOST OS's don't offer a stable kernel API/ABI. You can't run Windows 3.11 drivers on Vista and vice versa. Why would you expect that type of thing on Linux? Not to mention, the main reason for unstable behavior in Windows is drivers. Why would you want to bring that on Linux? Most companies do NOT spend the time on programming to make sure there stuff is rock solid. They program it until its good enough and then they ship it. I don't want close source drivers in Linux and neither do the people writing it. But you are free to implement whatever you want in your kernel...

As for package management, again, you are chasing ghosts. There is one universal package for Linux. Its called source code. And it works on every system. Some distros make it easier, some dont.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Wha?
by sbergman27 on Mon 1st Dec 2008 23:07 in reply to "RE[2]: Wha?"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

There are a lot of clueless people on this thread. Now I may be one of them, but last time I checked, MOST OS's don't offer a stable kernel API/ABI.

Out of curiosity, does anyone in the know care to comment on FreeBSD's policy on internal kernel api/abi?

Edited 2008-12-01 23:07 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

I feel like I just had this discussion on /.
by abraxas on Tue 2nd Dec 2008 22:21 in reply to "RE: Wha?"
abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

Linux uptake has absolutely nothing to do with a stable ABI. It's just one of the many idiotic reasons that come up every time Linux's success on the Desktop comes up. If that really was an issue Linux would not be doing so well in server marketshare. This argument belongs with the "X sucks", "multipls distros suck", and "multiple desktops suck" arguments. Multiple distros hasn't caused any issues in ther server market either.

As for your stated goal of "everything working out of the box", I don't think anyone has any illusions of that ever being the case. It's not even the case for Windows. Not only that it makes no difference whatsoever. People don't install their own OS. Linux won't gain desktop marketshare without preinstallations and people won't switch until they have a compelling reason to. Some of use have already found that reason, others have not. If we can get a "killer app" that only works on Linux, or works much better on Linux than Windows then maybe Linux will start to take away a measureable percentage of Microsoft's desktop marketshare.

Reply Parent Score: 2