> Disadvantages of a stable API:
> * It encourages binary-only drivers, while we prefer source drivers.
> Changing the API often and without warning is one way of
> hampering binary-only driver development without harming
> open-source drivers.
You are really shooting yourself in the foot here.
> Do a stable API save us work? No, because whoever changes the API
> also fixes all in-kernel users of said API.
That's very inefficient.
> how is non-OpenSource different? What can we do better? How can we
> learn from them?
Pretty much nothing, except for taking advantage of their precooked
interconnectivity api's, in which they excel in abstracting them pretty
well.
> > If you are working alone a stable API would be overkill. But GNU/Linux
> > is a collective effort, where stability is paramount to aid scalability.
> >
> > I hope the concepts here are clear.
>
> No, it's not clear what you mean by scalability. What is it exactly that
> you think would be more scalable? As has been mentioned already, there
> is no better example today of scalable development than the Linux kernel.
> So, I don't think you've laid out at all what it is you're talking about.
>
> I think I don't get how you come from "stable API" to "aid scalability"
> in the light that the current non-API doesn't seem to prevent
> scalability to the size linux development is today.
>
> The linux kernel development model scales very well. Linux itself scales
> from the smallest embedded processors to the largest parallel computing
> farms today; all without a stable internal API. So you've failed to make
> a case that there is a problem for which a stable API is the solution.
>
> Another option is that your assumption about "stability as a requirement
> for scalability" is wrong at least in case of the kernel. The kernel
> development scales very well so far. I can't see any delays caused by
> developers trying to keep up with a change in binary APIs. Well,
> except a handful of closed source vendors, but that is more or less
> intentional. If they get tired, they can hand in their source.
>
> I think most believe what I do: that our development model is scalable
> (scalability seems to be the least of its worries), and that unstable
> APIs are not a bad thing.
Don't mistake scalability for manageability/mantainability or flexibility.
Scalability is more, much more. It's about extendability and reusability
built on a solid foundation that may be stacked. Layers upon layers, the
sky is the limit. Stability is the key to unlock this scalability.
> > No troll! Just being IMHO. I hope that's OK?
>
> That's fine, but Linux and the development process is a personal
> achievement and creation of many here, so you have to try to be
> respectful :)
Sorry! Can you point out which part was offending?
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]
