Am I the only person who thinks these rationalizations are questionable, at least with respect to a particular arch? https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/stable-api-nonsense.rst …
-
-
-
Replying to @nothings @cmuratori
What about the ability to change critically flawed internal interfaces? Bad to do? Not convincing? Better alternative?
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
I think it's a case of prioritization. Getting a binary interface right pays massive dividends. These arguments are"we don't want to try."
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Has any Rad product ever even bothered to attempt this?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
It doesn't even make sense to try? As they note, they maintain a stable user-to-kernel interface so user programs don't break. Exact same
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nothings @tom_forsyth and
argument can be made for a stable interace so non-kernel-tree drivers don't break. There's no analogous situation for RAD products.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Linus' statement is basically that non-kernel-tree-drivers can DIAF. So it's an excellent analogy.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Like I said, it's political, not technical. So they shouldn't waste our time making spurious technical arguments.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
They are less technical arguments than technical consequences to policy choices. I'm not a fan of the tone of the writing.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes
Agreed, and agreed.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.