To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
That is not a downside of the closed modules, it is a downside of the kernel with their moving target ABI.
Edited 2011-01-14 12:18 UTC
Let's stop raising that point. Stable in-kernel AP/BI isn't gonna happen in the mainline Linux kernel, ever. It's logistically infeasible and most kernel developers would swear by the ability to change APIs as development progresses.
What's possible and actually being done is maintaining stable ABI in the same distro release and for enterprise products this often can span many years. In that respect, it isn't too different from commercial operating systems.
Mainline is a development branch. Linux kernel is being developed way faster and in a very different way than proprietary operating system kernels. If for whatever reason stable ABI is a must for you (it escapes me why it would even matter for usual desktop users tho), go ahead and use something else. Quit whining about something which isn't feasible.
Edited 2011-01-14 13:19 UTC
That is not a downside of the closed modules, it is a downside of the kernel with their moving target ABI. "
If a stable API is important to you, then feel free to keep using the same version of the kernel for as long as you want. No one is forcing you to update it.





Member since:
2007-12-16
Nothing is demanding the drivers to be integrated in the kernel code. Afaik they can still be loaded as modules as is the situation now.
The downside of these external, closed, modules is that they need to be updated everytime the kernel changes. AMD's proprietary drivers are always usually one or two Xorg versions behind, because they are slow to add new support.
That prevents people from using the latest version, which again might introduce new limits for other software.
Edited 2011-01-14 10:50 UTC