Re: Kernel interface changes (now Flame Bait)

James Turinsky (turinsky@LilithFair.Org)
Mon, 8 Feb 1999 04:50:48 -0500


James Turinsky, the owner/administrator of LilithFair.Org, Linux user
#102136
and user since late 1996, quit lurking and decided to write the following
(which is probably flame bait):

>In article <79g5bu$spd$1@palladium.transmeta.com>,
>H. Peter Anvin <hpa@transmeta.com> wrote:
>>
>>* Linus Torvalds has no interest whatsoever in developing such a
>> plug-in ABI. Someone else is welcome to do it.
>
>No, it's even more than that.
>
>I _refuse_ to even consider tying my hands over some binary-only module.
>
>Hannu Savolainen tried to add some layering to make the sound modules
>more "portable" among Linux kernel versions, and I disliked it for two
>reasons:
>
> - extra layers decrease readability, and sometimes make for performance
> problems. The readability thing is actually the larger beef I had
> with this: I just don't want to see drivers start using some strange
> wrapper format that has absolutely nothing to do with how they work.

One of these days I might actually learn C... which is why I support
this here. KISS Principle: Keep It Simple Stupid. That's why the
GNU/Linux systems get months of uptime (even with a somewhat cryptic CLI UI)
and Windows gets millions of users and only a few days of uptime (cryptic
code but a simple UI for most people)

> - I _want_ people to expect that interfaces change. I _want_ people to
> know that binary-only modules cannot be used from release to release.
> I want people to be really really REALLY aware of the fact that when
> they use a binary-only module, they tie their hands.

Go Linus Go!
The groups and companies making their stuff binary-only ought to either
go true open source or keep their stuff up to date by compiling it for
newer kernel releases. If they insist on stagnating after releasing
something for kernel 2.0.30 for example, screw 'em.

>Note that the second point is mainly psychological, but it's by far the
>most important one.
>
>Basically, I want people to know that when they use binary-only modules,
>it's THEIR problem. I want people to know that in their bones, and I
>want it shouted out from the rooftops. I want people to wake up in a
>cold sweat every once in a while if they use binary-only modules.

To which they should make it the people who insist on releasing only
binary modules. Those folks should either release source or keep up
with the kernel releases!

>Why? Because I'm a prick, and I want people to suffer? No.
>
>Because I _know_ that I will eventually make changes that break modules.
>And I want people to expect them, and I never EVER want to see an email
>in my mailbox that says "Damn you, Linus, I used this binary module for
>over two years, and it worked perfectly across 150 kernel releases, and
>Linux-5.6.71 broke it, and you had better fix your kernel".

I know if I got the amount of mail Linus does on this, I'd be in a room
with soft padded walls and in a jacket with arms that tie at the back.
Leave off the poor guy!

>See?
>
>I refuse to be at the mercy of any binary-only module. And that's why I
>refuse to care about them - not because of any really technical reasons,
>not because I'm a callous bastard, but because I refuse to tie my hands
>behind my back and hear somebody say "Bend Over, Boy, Because You Have
>It Coming To You".

>
>I allow binary-only modules, but I want people to know that they are
>_only_ ever expected to work on the one version of the kernel that they
>were compiled for. Anything else is just a very nice unexpected bonus if
>it happens to work.

Hey you complaining folks, Linus didn't have to allow binary-only modules
in the first place. Where would you be at now? (Redmond?)

>And THAT, my friend, is why when somebody complains about AFS, I tell
>them to go screw themselves, and not come complaining to me but complain
>to the AFS buys and girls. And why I'm not very interested in changing
>that.
>
> Linus

It's the binary module's owner/maintainer that is responsible, folks.
Just like if XYZ Co. released only Windows 3.1 drivers for their card
back in 1994 and didn't support it under Windows. You ought to be
yelling at XYZ and not Microsoft. Get the picture? Now go back off Linus
for a bit and let the man get some rest.

---
James Turinsky - person who has undergone counseling and therapy since 1987
               - also on Prozac
Linux Sarah.LilithFair.Org 2.2.0 #1 Tue Jan 26 01:28:24 EST 1999 i586
unknown
4:44am  up 12 days, 18:48,  1 user,  load average: 0.07, 0.02, 0.00

Thanks to those people who bleed, sweat, and cry to give us a free operating system that I can use and sleep well at night knowing that it will be running in the morning, and not crashed by some weird TCP packets nor taken over by a program that Microsoft markets as "Windows Remote Administration" (Back Orifice).

Oh yeah, see the Linux song I came up with one long day! http://www.dcache.net/~turinsky/ and see the Linux box I run at http://LilithFair.Org

Okay, my sig got too long... mailbox open for flames and spam turinsky@LilithFair.Org

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/