Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 14th Mar 2011 18:59 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y And over the weekend, the saga regarding Canonical, GNOME, and KDE has continued. Lots of comments all over the web, some heated, some well-argued, some wholly indifferent. Most interestingly, Jeff Waugh and Dave Neary have elaborated on GNOME's position after the initial blog posts by Shuttleworth and Seigo, providing a more coherent look at GNOME's side of the story.
Thread beginning with comment 466117
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: F**k this shit!
by oiaohm on Tue 15th Mar 2011 00:24 UTC in reply to "RE: F**k this shit!"
oiaohm
Member since:
2009-05-30

"We the users will suffer from desktop environment quirks while the egos battle it out, watching Microsoft, Google and Apple laugh all the way to bank.


And this is different from how things are now in what way? They've already got enough reasons to laugh at the major F/OSS operating systems without even looking at the GUI side of things. Let's try Linux: kernel modules, no stable API or ABI, subsystems being redone and overlayed atop one another... should I go on?
"

First thing please provide a case requiring a kernel module. Remember most drivers in linux can be done kernel module or userspace. Userspace ABI for making drivers is 100 percent non changing and kernel netural. Yes 10 year old userspace drivers on Linux still work today with the latest kernel no issues. Some userspace drivers for Linux also run on Freebsd without change.

Now that you have a case requiring a kernel module please now look at what damage that module can do if it malfunctions.

Basically you want a secure stable OS. Closed source kernel modules are not compatible. So there is no requirement for a stable ABI for kernel space. Treat Linux as minix when creating drivers as a closed source third party and you are basically fine. Don't Linux will fight with you as it correct to improve performance and secuirty.

Layered subsystems even Windows has this. Subsystems being redone natural development of all OS's.

Another classic case of a person putting up a baseless argument. Linux kernel does not have the huge ammount of embed usage if creating closed source drives were tricky. Also userspace drivers put you completely out the path of the Linux GPL license and its requirements.

Being a kernel module on the other hand you can link by mistake against GPL only functions so leading to being in breach of GPL. The way Linux is design is to protect closed source developers legal ass.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: F**k this shit!
by nt_jerkface on Tue 15th Mar 2011 01:44 in reply to "RE[2]: F**k this shit!"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Linux is designed to piss off closed source driver developers, period.

They won't even keep a subset of the kernel stable for VMWare.

How long are you going to defend them mr. ham? They've gone with the F*** proprietary drivers attitude for years and Linux just sits at 1%. God forbid they try something different.

Even when hardware companies submit drivers they still have the support lag problem.

You know I bet Microsoft loves their F*** proprietary companies attitude. A match made in heaven actually. Ideologues pissing off potential partners which just keeps them on the side of Microsoft.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: F**k this shit!
by lucas_maximus on Tue 15th Mar 2011 15:51 in reply to "RE[2]: F**k this shit!"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Interfaces are not supposed to change rapidly. It's a key software engineering concept ... the interface remains the same the implementation behind it changes.

If the interface does need to change you depreciate the old one and give people time to move over.

The only reason they keep changing it is either poor design or it is a deliberate attempt to force other devs to open source their drivers (if this is true it is another case of "freedom but as we tell you).

People can bash Windows all they like but a driver written for Windows XP in 2001 will still work with Windows XP today, the same is true also with Drivers between Solaris Versions.

Linux dev's really have no excuse.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: F**k this shit!
by oiaohm on Tue 15th Mar 2011 21:37 in reply to "RE[3]: F**k this shit!"
oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

Interfaces are not supposed to change rapidly. It's a key software engineering concept ... the interface remains the same the implementation behind it changes.

If the interface does need to change you depreciate the old one and give people time to move over.

The only reason they keep changing it is either poor design or it is a deliberate attempt to force other devs to open source their drivers (if this is true it is another case of "freedom but as we tell you).

Funny Linux did support Unified Unix Driver Standard. No drivers were made for it. It was binding up a kernel mode ABI for no gain. Developers insisted on calling the internal API's they could see not the stable ABI. Was even supported in the 2.6 line. To state what the hardware makers said repeatly for not using the Unified Unix Driver Standard was that the performance hit(less than 0.01 of a percent) was too great.

People can bash Windows all they like but a driver written for Windows XP in 2001 will still work with Windows XP today, the same is true also with Drivers between Solaris Versions.

Pardon. Windows XP drivers written in 2001 still work with Windows XP today. This is freeze kernel progression. Yes 2.4.37.11 that was released is the 2.4 tree that was first released in 2001 that has a stable kernel abi across the 2.4 line has basically no closed source drivers.

Now lets move on to vista. Vista just like Linux kernel 2.6 is pushing lots of drivers to user-space for the same basic reasons no need to tie hands behind back.

Linux dev's really have no excuse.


Problem is people like you are blind.

http://www.kernel.org/ Please note the kernels tagged longterm. They will be API compatible for as long as XP if not longer. Why not ABI. Something interesting. Turns out you must use the same compiler to have ABI. Reason why MS shipped driver development kits containing a different compiler to the normal Windows SDK. If you don't have the same compiler you must wrap the API that does cost performance.

Anyone who builds open solaris themselves with different compilers has also found out that from time to time solaris closed source drivers don't run stable either. So this is a selection between stable and not stable.

Userspace is already wrapped with the syscall framework. Userspace is simpler to provide compatibility libraries. Something people are not aware is some of the old syscalls on linux called from userspace are not processed by the Linux kernel but redirected to userspace libraries. So historic compatibility does not mean kernel bloat.

A userspace driver frameworks its far more stable. Drivers written in them like cups drivers you can pick up cups drivers from 1880~ from a few different unix systems and use them on current Linux by using loaders. 1993 from Linux system and use them as well.

Basically userspace proper solves the kernel to kernel issue. And driver support from hardware makers has been as bad as it always was.

I am sorry but the userspace framework on scale of stable is massive far passing the time frame any Kernel base ABI could offer. Its done in such away they never need to be revised in a way to break backwards compatibility. At worst redirect some syscalls to userspace for userspace handling.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: F**k this shit!
by allanregistos on Thu 17th Mar 2011 02:46 in reply to "RE[3]: F**k this shit!"
allanregistos Member since:
2011-02-10


People can bash Windows all they like but a driver written for Windows XP in 2001 will still work with Windows XP today, the same is true also with Drivers between Solaris Versions.

Linux dev's really have no excuse.

Hi, please read:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/gregkh/misc/2.6/stabl...

Reply Parent Score: 2