Hello all, >>One idea I have seen is to develop a limited kernel ABI that goes >>between the ever-changing interfaces of the main kernel and some fixed >>interface. As the kernel chances, more kruft would be added to this >>abstraction layer, but it would be added ONLY to that abstraction >>layer. It's kinda like DRI, but more generalized. This would have >>the advantage of allowing paranoid hardware vendors to write "legal" >>closed-source drivers but also discourage them from doing it, because >>there would be unavoidable performance disadvantages. This sounds >>great, but it amounts to us bending to the will of the old ways, and >>the old ways are broken. The monent we give them that opening is the >>moment we lose a lot of ground in our progress towards ubiquitous free >>software. It is this open source requirement for Linux that has >>spawned so much innovation and sharing of ideas and is the only reason >>why you can use so many x86-specific peripherals on a PowerPC >>platforms. "Don't go there," I say, because if you do, you're >>shooting yourself in the foot. > > > Sounds good. Though i am not sure what you intend to say here.
I think they know that stable ABI is bad idea... See this: http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/stable_api_nonsense.html Regards Rudolf _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
