Greg KH wrote:
> For people to think that the kernel developers are just "too dumb" to
> make a stable kernel api (and yes, I've had people accuse me of this
> many times to my face[1]) shows a total lack of understanding as to
> _why_ we change the in-kernel api all the time. Please see
> Documentation/stable_api_nonsense.txt for details on this.
I read this doc, and it doesn't make your case any clearer, on the contrary!
But first, your work to the kernel represents a not so dumb contribution,
especially the replacement of devfs. Thanks!
Now, to call a stable api nonsense is nonsense. Really, only a _stable_ api
is worth to be considered an API. Think about it.
The only advantage of not offering a _stable_ api is to enforce some weird
kind of copy protection scheme, because let's face it:
An API would benefit everybody, even those that may take advantage of it.
So to limit the kernel by making it awkward to interact with it, because
somebody may take advantage, is a rather paranoid way of doing things.
Things are bad enough the kernel being monolithic, and then inhibiting a sane
API to develop may only serve to delay the competitiveness of the kernel.
Loose the paranoia and prove GNU/Linux can stand on its own.
Thanks!
--
Al
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
