OSNews

The evidence is staring you in the face, but you don't want to hear it. Why can't the vast majority of distros do something as simple as play DVDs or Blu-Rays without being sued? This is 2009, for chrissakes. How can you possibly call that success?

The primary reason for this failure is the insistence of Linux zealots on having source code for anything they ship. Constantly shifting the ABIs isn't rational, from a development perspective. People claim they want "flexibility", but that's a red herring. What these same folks really want is to create a binary incompatibility such that you would HAVE to have the source code and compile the drivers with that specific version of the kernel in order to have a prayer of working.

Hardware OEMs aren't going to disclose all of their secret sauce to open source developers. Just as they won't share all of their IP with Microsoft. It's not a trust or fairness issue. It's a trade secret and patent issue. If you give away your technological advantages to your competitors, you cease to offer differentiation -- and you die as a commercial entity. Your competitors can leverage and replicate your research without putting in the same level of investment. You know, I'm surprised that so many people in the FOSS community are either blissfully unaware of the realities of this situation -- or simply don't care. Either way, you're shooting yourselves in the foot. It's like you're afraid of success or something, even when people explain step-by-step how you can win.

As for me, I don't care, one way or another. I write commercial software for a living, and the fact of the matter is that, if you guys fail to solve this problem, it just means more business for me. So, by all means continue to ignore what I'm saying. Enrich me, please.



First, OpenSolaris hasn't been open very long. Linux has had more than a decade headstart, and being first means a lot. Some people refer to this as First Mover Advantage. It takes time to write drivers, and there has to be sufficient interest and motivation to target any OS. Second, no slight to OpenSolaris (it's a good OS), but it was derived from Sun's relatively expensive workstation and server OS codebase which didn't use horizontal market hardware. Somebody has to write those drivers. Comparing one form of failure against another is counterproductive.

Edited 2009-11-08 04:46 UTC

What has any of that got to do with a stable or changing kernel ABI? Oh yes, nothing. What conversation do you think we're having here?



I find this laughable. Firstly, I have a pretty good idea why Linux is failing on the desktop and it has nothing to do with an 'insistence' on Free software. Distribution vendors routinely ship non-Free software when they have a good reason to do it... and a workable agreement with the rights holder.

Second, if shifting ABIs isn't rational why is it done? Yes, I know what you're about to say:



So now it's a conspiracy! The fact is that kernel devs do want the source code to drivers written for their kernel. The GPL requires this without any shifting of ABIs. This is, in fact, the rational argument against my argument that a stable ABI helps proprietization of the kernel. It's amazing no one has attempted it.

So, given that we get the source code anyway, why do you think there isn't a stable ABI? Could it be that there is some rational reason not to have one?



This is simply not true. They will disclose that information if that's what it takes to sell hardware. Their business wont die if they do, it may if they don't.



I for one welcome our new OpenSolaris overlords. If what you say is true it should gradually take over from Linux. If it does I will owe you a caffeinated drink of your choice.