On Sunday 03 February 2008 00:03:10 Greg KH wrote: > On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 07:52:37PM -0500, Daniel Hazelton wrote: > > On Saturday 02 February 2008 19:22:49 Greg KH wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 04:44:57PM +0200, Heikki Orsila wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > > > @@ -145,6 +145,10 @@ as small as possible, and that all potential > > > > interfaces are tested as well as they can be (unused interfaces are > > > > pretty much impossible to test for validity.) > > > > > > > > +However, changing an interface can be delicate work and it can take > > > > +significant amount of developer effort. Therefore, an interface is > > > > +not changed unless the change is regarded as very important by the > > > > +developers. > > > > > > > > What to do > > > > ---------- > > > > > > I still don't understand why you want to add these sentances. Why are > > > they needed? Are people thinking that the kernel developers just > > > randomly change things just because they are bored and have nothing > > > else to do at the moment? Do people think that our changes are > > > gratuitous? > > > > > > Even so, I don't think this needs to be added, we have already stated > > > many good reasons why changing apis are necessary and good. Do need to > > > add another one? > > > > Actually, Greg, a hell of a lot of people that don't track linux kernel > > development do think that way. And there are always going to be people > > that think that way. > > So why would to more sentances trying to say "see, we really do know > what we are doing, we aren't idiots" make things any better to these > people? (hint, it wouldn't...)
I know this, because I've never needed to even read the document to understand why the API may have to change. But there are people that are very brain dead - I mean *EXTREMELY* brain dead who will start drooling and not understand the whole point of the document without a simple statement like the above. It is those people - and I've had a hell of a lot of contact with them (including people manning the phones in tech support departments!) - that wouldn't understand that the reason for the lack of a "fixed, stable API" is because of the various API changes that add capacity. (Instead they'd say "But MS does it with Windows" - ignoring the fact that the Windows API changed when NT3.51 was released, changed again when Win95 was released and has changed with *EVERY* release of Windows since - to the point that there are programs written for Win95 that can't/won't run on an XP machine.) > > As it stands the recommended paragraph does clarify that, while the > > interfaces aren't stable, can and will change as needed, there are some > > core interfaces that *WON'T* change without a very good reason. > > Again, do you think we kernel developers just randomly change core apis > because we are bored and want something to do late at night when we > can't sleep and are tired of playing Rock Band? No, I don't. Never have. But the fact is that there *ARE* people who do think that way. I've had a hell of a lot of contact with them. When I talk to people about using Linux (locally - I get "pinged" by someone every time I walk into a store to buy something, anymore) there is at least one person who complains that they can't run Linux because required hardware X isn't supported, and the manufacturer says its because there isn't a stable API to write the driver against. (though it's usually a lot coarser and less technical - I'm sure you understand) > > Having such a public statement that anyone can see and people can > > point to is another weapon to help people fight the FUD that exists > > around Linux. > > The whole article explains why apis are change for very good reasons > (evolution of hardware, security, we now know better, etc.) That's the > whole point of the document... Yes, it does, but you are making the mistake I used to make all the time and assuming that most people are going to actually have the ability to take the information in the document and comprehend that any *ONE* of the reasons that a stable API is bad is enough to not have one. Having such a paragraph to point to - or just having it there when those dead-brained people actually find and read the document - will definitely be a good thing. ... And now that I've re-iterated and explained the rather poor opinion I have of most people in the world and how it applies to this situation, I'm going to shut up and not say another word about this. DRH -- Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
