Just a few random unfiltered thoughts that popped up while reading through
this thread. Please forgive me^^
* What do you mean no stable API? I will spend WAY more time adapting to
API changes compared to implementing the features myself and weeding out
most bugs? WHY ON EARTH SHOULD I USE IT?
* Innovation through rewriting and completely breaking APIs? Ok, I've done
rewrites. They involved MAJOR changes to requirements. What was your
reason? The new API was neater? Was the performance improvement anywhere
near measurable and not achievable without breaking the API so badly? Was
the design so bad you couldn't implement the features on top? Oh wait,
Linux folks have some strange analogies with software design/biology and
religious nuts. I don't get the comparison but apparently it's a religious
stance that thinking about requirements and laying out an API that could
sustain a a year or two is a bad idea compared to writing some fugly code
that nobody would touch and then rewriting it every few months. Who cares,
it works (somehow).
* ... Abstraction? Whats that? Oooh, right ... forget about it.
* Out of tree is easier? Hows that? In case refactoring is REQUIRED,
wouldn't it be easier if everything is in place?
* OOOh ... out of treeeeee! The things that disappear into the mist once
you upgrade to a new kernel version. What? Recompiling won't help? The API
is gone? Not maintained? Oh well ... I'll just buy a new card.
* Windows? Like on a submarine? As soon as you open one the trouble
starts? The blue thingy thats so stable you have to reboot your server
every week? (Of course except you do nothing at all with it except letting
it sit there and brag about how stable it is.) At least it has a stable
ABI. Oh to hell with a stable ABI, I just want a stable API!
* Companies MAINTAINING ...? Sure that'll help sales. Maintaining drivers
for 10 year old hardware! Lots of profits!
* Standard Interfaces? The ones that get replaced all the time? (Wait ...
I was already there, wasn't I?)