[IshKebab]

That's a really backwards way of thinking about software distribution. It's like Debian's idea that every piece of software in existence should be packaged for Debian (and Suse, Red Hat, Fedora, Ubuntu, etc.).

I don't package any of the software I write for Debian because I don't want to have to jump through their hoops. I don't blame device manufacturers for wanting to avoid jumping through Linux's hoops. Especially with having to deal with Linus.

Nobody likes Apple's app review process do they? I don't think device driver writers should have to go through that.

(I also wish they would open the code but not having a stable driver ABI clearly doesn't make that happen.)

I think a valid reason for not having a stable driver ABI is that it's a mountain of work and makes everything else more difficult. But I've never heard anyone give that as the reason.

[realusername]

There's a big difference between Apple's review process which I would qualify as unnecessary and unfair and Linux's review process which is necessary to produce high quality software.

But it's true that they could at least start by publishing the source code, even if they don't contribute directly.

As for the ABI, I also agree, this would just make the situation worse.

[IshKebab]

> Linux's review process which is necessary to produce high quality software.

Why? I don't see how that follows. It might be likely to produce better software simply by having experienced kernel devs review the code, but it's definitely not necessary.