Jeff Spaleta wrote:
The kernel's job is to provide a stable hardware-independent interface.
I'm pretty sure the the kernel's upstream developers don't agree with
you on that.
A stable ABI hasn't been a "feature" of upstream kernel development...ever.
On the user side it is - otherwise you can't come close to posix or any
other standard that applications are developed to.
It doesn't have to keep changing to do that, particularly on hardware
that doesn't change, although it does need security/bugfix updates. The
concepts of open()/read()/write()/ioctl() never change. Applications, on
the other hand, are always being improved.
Are you calling the development that the upstream kernel developers
do... not improvements? I think you just insulted the upstream kernel
They are improvements to whatever extent they enable new hardware to be
used, but that is very much irrelevant on an existing, working box. I
don't mind installing a new version when I get a new machine that needs
it. Isn't it more of an insult to say that yesterday's kernel isn't
usable? Or last week's, or last year's? I think mostly the same people
wrote them all - although they used to sensibly insulate the users from
their changes by supplying stable and development versions,
understanding that changes will likely break things.