Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 27th Sep 2012 18:44 UTC, submitted by MOS6510
Thread beginning with comment 536774
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: What is the point...
by tuma324 on Fri 28th Sep 2012 00:49
in reply to "RE[7]: What is the point..."
" He blames C++ because he thinks it is horrible, no providing any technical detail.
He hasn't fully explained his kernel abi position either. Yes he calls it "non-sense" but both Windows and OSX have one and don't suffer any performance benefits because of it.
Someone should ask him how a 3 year abi would slow down Linux. Like have him specifically point to a period in time where it would have caused problems. Or ask him if in-tree drivers are ever broken. Everyone who interviews him gets a geek crush and throws him softballs.
Everyone has their faults and Linus can be pigheaded. "
Bullshit.
"One of the core kernel rules has always been that we never ever break any external interfaces. That rule has been there since day one, although it's gotten much more explicit only in the last few years. The fact that we break internal interfaces that are not visible to userland is totally irrelevant, and a total red herring."
-- Linus Torvalds
Go read Linus and Ingo answer here:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/115250422803614415116/posts/hMT5kW8LKJk
RE[9]: What is the point...
by ze_jerkface on Fri 28th Sep 2012 08:10
in reply to "RE[8]: What is the point..."
RE[9]: What is the point...
by nej_simon on Fri 28th Sep 2012 11:41
in reply to "RE[8]: What is the point..."
First you call ZJ's comment bullshit, then you post a quote by LT that reaffirms his comment?
The fact that we break internal interfaces that are not visible to userland is totally irrelevant, and a total red herring.
And I can't find anything in the thread you linked where he explains his position. Instead LT and other kernel devs talk about Linux having a stable external interface which is a different matter.
Then there is of course the stable_api_nonsense.txt file which doesn't adress the largest issue of not having a stable driver ABI (ie. that it's difficult to get new drivers without replacing the kernel with a newer version and that you'll have to wait for drivers to be merged upstream in a stable release before you can use the new hardware you bought).




Member since:
2012-06-22
He hasn't fully explained his kernel abi position either. Yes he calls it "non-sense" but both Windows and OSX have one and don't suffer any performance benefits because of it.
Someone should ask him how a 3 year abi would slow down Linux. Like have him specifically point to a period in time where it would have caused problems. Or ask him if in-tree drivers are ever broken. Everyone who interviews him gets a geek crush and throws him softballs.
Everyone has their faults and Linus can be pigheaded.