On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 14:16, Andy Green wrote:
> ABI churn is not the only problem with binary blobs. Point in case I
> saw on this list in the last couple of days, Adobe Acrobat blew chunks
> on a double free. This is not an ABI problem but a hidden bug in the
> binary blob.
It's not hidden to everyone so that's not a reasonable description
of the problem. It's just an ordinary bug to be fixed by the
responsible party. Give them some reason to care about fixing
it - like a platform that has a reputation for cooperating with
other suppliers and a large user base - and the responsible
parties will take care of their parts.
> > Provide a documented and unchanging interface so if something works
> > today it will still work next week.
>
> That does not follow for the same reason... a stable ABI would be nice
> but that's not what one can expect with Linux. It won't guarantee
> binary blobs becoming paragons of coding virtue and to provide immortal
> functionality either.
There are broken binary blobs and there are binary blobs that
are perfectly fine. It doesn't make a lot of sense to
overgeneralize about them. There's a lot of crud available
in source too.
> I have to maintain a chunk of kernelside code and tracking the whiplash
> on the kernel can be a PITA, so your point is understood. But it's not
> like the only issue with opaque binaries is that the ABI keeps changing.
It's the issue that keeps them from being fixed. I don't see
similar problems happening with OS X for example. There are
normal bugs that show up, but once fixed they don't reappear
on every release.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesll@xxxxxxxxx
