The term “ABI” literally stands for Application Binary Interface. Having a stable one is literally the antithesis of a libre/open-source project.
Can you elaborate? Having an unstable ABI does not make an project libre/open-source… but one might be wrong. And This creature is open to a different point of view.
Linux requires source compilation by design.
So does every other software on this planet? Microsoft Windows requires compilation from source. The source just happens to not be under an open-source license (or even source available to have a look inside for oneself…)
An unstable ABI isn’t the requirement, it is the result of the open source requirement further up the chain, which is the important part of the equation. The unstable ABI is a knock-on effect, not the driving cause.
And, for the second paragraph, I meant that it requires on-the-fly compilation, it needs to be more flexible. Any changes a particular project or user makes (as is their right, afforded to them by the open source licenses) needs to be incorporated in the entire chain.
The whole point of open source is to hand control and power to the end user of the software, whereas corporate interests align with taking that away. Having a stable ABI means locking down the ability to modify source code and compile it yourself, thereby stripping you of these very important freedoms.
Having a stable ABI means locking down the ability to modify source code and compile it yourself, thereby stripping you of these very important freedoms.
Sorry… can’t follow this reasoning.
Either the source is open (and thus open to modification) or it is not. Having a stable ABI has nothing to do with that. There are some systems in the Linux kernel that have not changed in ages (and are not allowed to change if the kernel developers are to be believed). Does that make the Linux kernel locked down in ones ability to modify the source code?
Can you elaborate? Having an unstable ABI does not make an project libre/open-source… but one might be wrong. And This creature is open to a different point of view.
So does every other software on this planet? Microsoft Windows requires compilation from source. The source just happens to not be under an open-source license (or even source available to have a look inside for oneself…)
edit:typo
An unstable ABI isn’t the requirement, it is the result of the open source requirement further up the chain, which is the important part of the equation. The unstable ABI is a knock-on effect, not the driving cause.
And, for the second paragraph, I meant that it requires on-the-fly compilation, it needs to be more flexible. Any changes a particular project or user makes (as is their right, afforded to them by the open source licenses) needs to be incorporated in the entire chain.
The whole point of open source is to hand control and power to the end user of the software, whereas corporate interests align with taking that away. Having a stable ABI means locking down the ability to modify source code and compile it yourself, thereby stripping you of these very important freedoms.
Sorry… can’t follow this reasoning. Either the source is open (and thus open to modification) or it is not. Having a stable ABI has nothing to do with that. There are some systems in the Linux kernel that have not changed in ages (and are not allowed to change if the kernel developers are to be believed). Does that make the Linux kernel locked down in ones ability to modify the source code?
Really lost right now…