Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 29th Aug 2012 22:52 UTC
Linux Miguel de Icaza: "To sum up: (a) First dimension: things change too quickly, breaking both open source and proprietary software alike; (b) incompatibility across Linux distributions. This killed the ecosystem for third party developers trying to target Linux on the desktop. You would try once, do your best effort to support the 'top' distro or if you were feeling generous 'the top three' distros. Only to find out that your software no longer worked six months later. Supporting Linux on the desktop became a burden for independent developers." Mac OS X came along to scoop up the Linux defectors.
Thread beginning with comment 533167
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by woegjiub
by gilboa on Thu 30th Aug 2012 08:11 UTC in reply to "Comment by woegjiub"
gilboa
Member since:
2005-07-06

Someone on another article mentioned that we need a stable kernel API for drivers, so that they can write them once, and know that they will run against future kernel versions for the lifespan of their product.


For the 99,999'th time, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.
I maintain a fairly large (in 100,000's of LOC) in-kernel project that covers everything from files to networking. This code works in Linux, BSD (when required) and used to work in Windows.
The amount of work required to maintain the project between different Linux kernel releases is negligible at best (usually less that 1h per kernel release).

*However*, I dropped the Windows support as undocumented changes between SP releases tended to break both the user-space part of the code and the kernel-space part of the code.

Care to prove me wrong?

- Gilboa

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by woegjiub
by lucas_maximus on Thu 30th Aug 2012 08:33 in reply to "RE: Comment by woegjiub"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

We are talking about Drivers not your pet projects ... unless you are talking about drivers your comments are not relevant.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by woegjiub
by gilboa on Thu 30th Aug 2012 08:59 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by woegjiub"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

We are talking about Drivers not your pet projects ... unless you are talking about drivers your comments are not relevant.


*Sigh*.
Option 1:
- I manage a large project (mostly in-kernel) that supports multiple operating system due to client demands and that includes multiple drivers.
- I'm really, really, bored.

Care to take a guess?

- Gilboa

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by woegjiub
by gilboa on Thu 30th Aug 2012 09:02 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by woegjiub"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

We are talking about Drivers not your pet projects ... unless you are talking about drivers your comments are not relevant.


BTW, Given your apparent experience in Linux kernel development I can only assume that know quite well that in-kernel APIs (E.g. networking, files) changes are just as frequent as driver API changes.

As before, feel free to prove otherwise.

- Gilboa

Edited 2012-08-30 09:03 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3