White paper: Vendor Kernels, Bugs and Stability

Posted May 23, 2024 20:56 UTC (Thu) by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
In reply to: White paper: Vendor Kernels, Bugs and Stability by mb
Parent article: White paper: Vendor Kernels, Bugs and Stability

> It would change nothing.

Except it changes everything

> Every distribution and everyone building their kernel will just enable this option, because stuff will break without enabling it.

You just said it!

The distributions are enabling something that is disabled by default? They're accepting responsibility for keeping it working.

Developers are enabling something that is disabled by default? They're accepting the associated risks.

People are enabling something that is marked "deprecated"? They're being placed on notice that it's being left to bit-rot.

The fact that people have to actively enable something that developers clearly don't want activated means that anybody using it will have three choices - migrate their code away, take over maintenance, or do an ostrich and bury their heads in the sand. Users will still be able to be complain "I didn't know", but their upstream won't have that excuse.

Cheers,
Wol

White paper: Vendor Kernels, Bugs and Stability

Posted May 23, 2024 21:01 UTC (Thu) by mb (subscriber, #50428) [Link] (1 responses)

>Developers are enabling something that is disabled by default? They're accepting the associated risks.

Do you realize, that most kernel options are disabled by default?

>The fact that people have to actively enable something that developers clearly don't want activated means

It means that developers don't have a clue what people (users!) actually want and need.

Closing your eyes won't make the demand go away, unless you are less than three years old.

White paper: Vendor Kernels, Bugs and Stability

Posted May 23, 2024 22:41 UTC (Thu) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

> Do you realize, that most kernel options are disabled by default?

And how many of those options have "deprecated" in their name? Surely that's a massive red flag.

> It means that developers don't have a clue what people (users!) actually want and need.

And how many developers are employed by (therefore are) users? I believe Alphabet employs loads. Meta employs loads. Most of the kernel developers I have contact with are employed by large end users. It's a little difficult to be oblivious of your own needs. (Some people manage, I'm sure ...)

How difficult is it - to set a "not enabled" flag that cannot be accessed without some sort of warning that this flag will enable deprecated functionality Surely it's not beyond the wit of your typical kernel developer? That's ALL that's required.

Cheers,
Wol