Linux’s Sole Wireless/WiFi Driver Maintainer Is Stepping Down
phoronix.com
phoronix.com
Wi-Fi was a dealbreaker because it was a laptop and it was my only machine. I remember one day booting in the latest live CD that Canonical had sent (way back when you could get them delivered by post), switch on my laptop and seeing those SSIDs appear.
It honestly felt like magic, and I’ll never forget it. Something as mundane as working WiFi drivers on a basic spec Vaio quite literally changed my life, by allowing me to run Linux natively with a web connection. That opened many doors to me later in life.
Forever grateful for that work.
Before I managed to get WiFi working (I had lots of trial and error with ndiswrapper), my very first triumph was getting a USB-powered "winmodem" to work with Damn Small Linux (which I got for free in a magazine). One of the websites I used seems to still be online: http://www.linmodems.org
While I am so thankful that compatibility and ease of use has dramatically improved since those heady days, I honestly think I wouldn't have gotten the career I have without that struggle and the curiosity FOSS provided that drove me to push through and learn something.
And ndiswrapper… I haven’t read that word in SO long!
I started using Linux full time again a year ago (Bazzite) after ~15 years away and I'm astonished how much stuff just works now. I can just use Chrome and every website works. My entire Steam library works. I installed this as an experiment but the experience is so damn good these days I haven't had the need or desire to break glass and install Windows.
I don’t think you understand what objectively means.
When it comes to things like this, it almost always boils down to personal preference. Which is subjective not objective.
Your comment implies Windows versions could not be ranked objectively, which suggests an objective criteria could not be established. I disagree.
User satisfaction and user serveys are subjective.
Also the stability of features often depends on where along the life of Windows you measure. For example XP post-SP3 is a very different OS to XP pre-SP1. So how do you decide where to measure? That’s also subjective. Not to mention the subjective question about what “stable” means and how you compare stability
There’s been enough arguments on HN regarding that last point alone.
For example Windows 2000 has crashed fewer times for me than Windows 7. Does this mean that Windows 2000 is now “objectively” the better OS?
You might argue that the sample size is too small, but who decides the sample size? Are you including or excluding specific datapoints? Of course you are, which means “better” is then defined by the sampled data (for example the power-user vs novice ratio for windows 2000 will be different to Me and 7). And thus it’s subjective again because who decides which datapoints are important and why?
Are we talking about “better” for web browsing? Home server tasks? Software development? Video editing? Etc. who decides that and why?
What about “better” for memory or CPU footprint? That matters more to other people.
We might think that because we are making measurements that this isn’t subjective but those measurements are still a matter of personal judgement.
Edit: as an aside, this is precisely why I never use absolutes in a professional capacity. It’s easy to “say X is better than Y!” but it demonstrates far more professional experience to say “it depends. Tell me what your requirements are.”
The approach to accomplishing that can be a discussion, but not one relevant to the point I made above - it need only be acknowledged that it is possible.
If they said “highest rated for performance X according to Y” (where X and Y are defined measurements), then it would be an objective statement.
However just saying something is “objectively the best” doesn’t make it objective.
> If they said “highest rated for performance X according to Y” (where X and Y are defined measurements), then it would be an objective statement.
So you are saying OSes can only be compared objectively on specific features, and not in an overall capacity?
> However just saying something is “objectively the best” doesn’t make it objective.
True, which is why I said I believe a case could be made. This being a HN comment I'm not taking too seriously, I'm not going to put in the work to do so, I'm more interested just to see casual discussion and see people who might agree or disagree, without worrying too much about the semantics of the claim.
Depends. “Better” is a subjective term so if you were to discuss overall capacity objectively then you would need to explain why you arrived at that conclusion. Otherwise it’s left to interpretation (ie subjective).
For example: I could make several well reasoned arguments why I consider Windows 2000 to be better. Others could do the same for XP. We are all correct for our own interpretation of “best”.
Well, like I said, I need not describe the methodology that would result in objective measurement - it need only be possible to measure things objectively to the best of our ability. And it is.
However, Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows 7, and Windows 10 are all crowd-rated quite a bit more favourably than Windows Vista, Windows 8, and Windows 11. So, it seems that there are objective criteria after-all.
And the fact that the GP has been downvoted in oblivion further demonstrates how others disagree with their statement. I’m not saying I agree or disagree with the peer-moderation though but rather using is a datapoint to illustrate that if 7 is “objectively” the best then there shouldn’t be any room for interpretation — and yet people are interpreting “best” differently.
See my other comment for examples.
If you search best versions of windows, pretty much every single result is giving it to win7. I think that's sufficiently convincing evidence for my point.
Also, in response to comment being downvoted as though that indicated something, your comment disagreeing with my first comment is more downvoted than my own, indicating more people disagree with your contention than with my ranking.
Like there is one that says NT is the best...or maybe 2000...but that person is not disagreeing with ranking but making the point that subjectivity plays a part.
As previously stated, it's not merely an opinion that W7 is the best, but an objective argument supported by reasoning and evidence, also both objective.
But by all means, let's keep discussing this despite your proclamations to want to be done.
More people disagreed with your initial first comment to my point than with my ranking, which is pretty much considered the industry consensus as evidenced by search results.
Sure, just not in a way that supports your claims.
> One might describe the conversation as "subjective". ;-)
Only if one ignores the evidence that shows a point to be "objective".
Again, it's industry consensus that W7 is the best version of Windows. That, at least, is indisputably objective.
edit:
I noticed that you're not replying to my other question. Can i take it from that, that you're more interested in trolling than genuine discourse?
I am referring to an industry consensus, not simply a random subset of industry professionals. You are free to dismiss that as irrelevant as you dismiss other evidence if you like.
> I noticed that you're not replying to my other question. Can i take it from that, that you're more interested in trolling than genuine discourse?
Given your behavior if you had the ability to be notified by replies I think it would be worse for discourse on HN, as you would get in more discussions like the one you are going out of your way to prolong here. I simply don't want to be the one to enable that.
I was honestly thankful you asked a question I felt I could ignore so that particular discussion could end.
You do know that "consensus" means:
> An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole.
Ergo there is no consensus reached and thus your opinion is subjective.
> Given your behavior if you had the ability to be notified by replies I think it would be worse for discourse on HN, as you would get in more discussions like the one you are going out of your way to prolong here. I simply don't want to be the one to enable that.
Ouch. More insults and personal attacks. You do also realise you're the one who said you'd keep replying until I stop? Shouldn't your comment apply to yourself too? (those are rhetorical questions by the way)
> I was honestly thankful you asked a question I could just leave hanging so that particular discussion could finally end.
So you're just interested in trolling then. Got it.
> > An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole.
> Ergo there is no consensus reached and thus your opinion is subjective.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression a consensus is synonymous with unanimous consent - that simply isn't so.
Look at a scientific consensus for example, there will always be a minority of scientists who disagree.
> Ouch. More insults and personal attacks.
Well, certainly not 'more' since unlike you I didn't engage in insults...that aside, though, insulting you here was honestly not my intention, but that is an honest answer to the question you asked.
> You do also realise you're the one who said you'd keep replying until I stop? Shouldn't your comment apply to yourself too? (those are rhetorical questions by the way)
Rhetorical or not, responding since this was edited in after my reply and I think is a misrepresentation. I said upfront that I would rather be done but will continue to reply to anything that I feel is a misrepresentation. You simply said you wanted to be done, yet went out of your way to continue the discussion, even if it was to do nothing more than add an insult.
> So you're just interested in trolling then. Got it.
Not at all. There is a reason I didn't reply and say that in answer to your question, and only answered here because you asked explicitly. It's what I honestly believe. Sorry.
And hence the subjective part: I disagree with your selection of criteria.
We might just have to agree to disagree though it’s been an interesting conversation nonetheless.
Sure, I account for that.
> And hence the subjective part: I disagree with you’re selection of criteria
I explicitly haven't listed an entire set of criteria, although I'd be curious to se which version of Windows you would think could be put forward as better objectively.
Pretty sure Windows 7 has all types of aware and highest scores for user satisfaction and what not, so a cursory review of the available data would seem to align with my ranking.
But, still, which version do you think beats Windows 7 since you disagree based on the few qualifiers I listed? You seem like an XP man, is it XP?
For me it would be Windows 2000.
When it was released its competition was
- Mac OS 9 (which was about as reliable as Windows 98)
- OSX wasn’t yet released. But when it did, it wasn’t particularly great for existing Mac users. It took a few years for OSX to really gain momentum.
- Linux (who’s desktop support was still immature)
- BeOS 5 (which was bloody awesome, but also very niche)
- Windows Me (easily the worst desktop OS Microsoft have ever produced. Say what you will about Vista, but its flaws were a combination of its ambition and Microsoft “certifying” it for hardware that wasn’t powerful enough. Whereas Me just sucked in every conceivable and irredeemable way).
Windows 2000 was the first time Microsoft but focus on the little details. For example Notepad was finally given hot keys like ctrl+s to save. In fact I’d argue it was the last time Microsoft put refinement above new features too.
It was the first time we saw a workstation OS suitable for home use (aside perhaps BeOS but much as I love BeOS, NT was a more sophisticated engineering feat).
Windows 2000 was the first time a windows release didn’t double the system requirements. A trend that then continued again right up until around 7/8.
Windows 2000 was rock solid. I only managed to crash it twice and one of those times was because I was playing around with an undocumented Windows API — so that really was my own fault.
Windows 2000 was the last time was unified UI across all of the OS management tools. Except for the font management which was still a 16-bit app. Microsoft have only gotten worse at this since too. It was also the prettiest too (but that’s entirely subjective).
Windows 2000 was the OS that shipped the most sane defaults. Though there was still some WTF moments like the terminal port being open. Since then though, I’m constantly fighting with Windows trying to dumb everything down.
Windows 2000 is what proved to the world that Microsoft could release a half decent OS that supports SMP and doesn’t require a DOS bootloader. It was a real game changer of an OS and released at the time when everything else on the market was garage too. Which just goes to demonstrate just how much of a game changer it was.
It was, in my opinion, not only the first Microsoft OS that didn’t completely suck in every conceivable way. But arguably the only good OS they’ve ever released because everything since has been fraught with compromises. Including 7.
XP pre-SP2 was basically an uglier 2000 with twice the CPU and memory footprint. After SP2 XP grew into its own entirely. But by that point desktop Linux was good enough to run as my primary OS.
Edit: the opinions here are both my own, and my professional experience managing desktop and server IT infrastructures for small businesses at that time. And at that time, Windows 2000 changed everything. If 7 hadn’t been released then Microsoft could have kept supporting XP and most people would have been perfectly happy. But if 2000 wasn’t released then Microsoft would have been in the same deep shit that Apple were with their repeated failed attempts at creating a successor to Mac OS prior to re-hiring Steve Jobs.
Windows 2000 was indeed much better than XP and I ran it myself, but it was designed to be a replacement for NT and not geared towards consumers. Win7 was the culmination and peak of what MS started with XP - moving consumers to a stable NT based OS.
W7 was also rock solid, didn't double the system requirements from Vista, and I would also argue had a 99% practically unified UI experience with Aero Glass. The defaults were mostly fine, not worse than W2000 IMO, as a bunch of services still had to be disabled, but it was nothing like what you have to do to restrict W10.
What arguments could you make, attempting to use objective criteria and technical merit only (i.e. excluding being first at something and just considering how well something worked) that 2000 was better than W7, when AFAIK W7 was a better culmination of Microsoft's goals with a better user experience, and much longer longevity. W7 had a longer lifetime than XP, and XP and 7 both had far longer lifetimes than 2000.
The arguments you’re making about my comments are precisely the ones I made to you yesterday.
I said OSes can be objectively measured, when you were pointing out that much of the measurement is subjective. I pointed out that is largely irrelevant, since all that matters is they can be measured objectively, even if it's a discussion on how best to do that. You begrudgingly agreed.
I simply stated W7 was the best without defining criteria, but did say I believe it would hold up against whatever objective criteria are established, and that there is already objective evidence in support of that point.
Here, you've listed unambiguously subjective preferences and opinions, with not even a slight attempt to define objective criteria to support your point.
For what it's worth, if you search 'best version of windows', pretty much every singles article ranking them is giving Windows 7 first. At the very least, it seems to be the majority opinion.
I think the text from the Digital Trends article giving it first place is fair:
"There’s an argument to be made that Windows 7 is a just a refined version of Windows Vista, released at a time when people actually had the kind of hardware that could run it properly. But this king of Windows releases did so much more than that. It was fast and responsive, with many important visual upgrades over previous versions of Windows. It had excellent compatibility, working with older hardware and software alike, and introduced important features which are still Windows mainstays today. It added pinning applications to the taskbar, introduced stacking Windows for better organization, let you preview windows with taskbar thumbnails, and it made it possible to snap Windows to different portions of the screen.
Windows 7 is important for what it didn’t have, too. It feels like the last Windows operating system that was fast and modern, but hadn’t yet started chasing features designed for other platforms, like touch-targeted UI elements, or smart assistant integration. It didn’t have the Microsoft Store or overblown data collection, and there was no attempt to force you to use an online account to login.
It was a clean, responsive operating system that many would likely continue to use today if it was still supported by Microsoft and modern hardware alike."
Now you’re just being obtuse. Most of my comments were on a par with your own comments. In fact some of the comments you’ve just shared are literally just repackaging similar remarks I made about 2000!
I’m honestly surprised you can’t see the irony in your comments. You’re literally applying a double standard where its “objective” it’s your judgement but anyone else’s judgement that disagrees with your own is subjective.
I’ve got a fair amount more I’d love to discuss, but it’s probably better we just agree to disagree.
I strongly disagree.
> In fact some of the comments you’ve just shared are literally just repackaging similar remarks I made about 2000!
Except, the context matters, because 7 was a continue refinement of those things whereas things took a downturn other than that, meaing 7 was the peak, which is what is part of the justfiication.
> I’m honestly surprised you can’t see the irony in your comments.
Because I think it only exists in your perception.
> You’re literally applying a double standard where its “objective” it’s your judgement but anyone else’s judgement that disagrees with your own is subjective.
Not at all, I have repeatedly stressed that objective criteria should be fined and used.
> ’ve got a fair amount more I’d love to discuss, but it’s probably better we just agree to disagree.
I’ve got a fair amount more I’d love to discuss, but it’s probably better we just agree to disagree.
Entirely up to you. I'll probably keep replying every time I see a reply. If you think we can have productive discussion, then I hope you would continue, if you think we are seeing things too differently and the discussion will devolve and not be productive, then I would hope you don't.
I will note that in a recent, separate discussion you resorted to insults and vulgarity. If you think the same would occur in this discussion with me, knowing we disagree, then I would definitely ask that we just leave it here - but again, I will continue to reply to any messages received that I feel are misrepresenting anything or need what I consider correction.
Hard disagree.
I hadn’t clocked that you were the same person who was lecturing other people about the politics in their country while living in a different country. I remember from that conversation that you considered your own opinion irrefutable regardless of any evidence presented so it’s no surprise to learn here that you also consider your opinion to be objective and infallible.
If I’d clicked you were the same person I wouldnt have bothered replying and just downvoted you like others had.
> Hard disagree.
It's not a matter of opinion. You literally resorted to insults and vulgarity. Do I need quote your words back to you?
> who was lecturing other people about the politics in their country while living in a different country. I
No, I was someone pointing our your arguments were bad. Out of the two of us, I'm the only one who has lived in both countries, and my arguments were not fallacious.
> I remember from that conversation that you considered your own opinion irrefutable regardless of any evidence presented
This is certainly ironic given you engaged in whataboutism and your evidence was shown to be flawed for the points you were trying to make.
> so it’s no surprise to learn here that you also consider your opinion to be objective and infallible.
I think you are bad at reasoning your points and you ignore objective evidence. My opinion isn't infallible, but the reasoning and evidence to support it is better than what you are relying on to support yours.
> If I’d clicked you were the same person I wouldnt have bothered replying and just downvoted you like others had.
Funny, I suspected you only started the discussion you did because you had recognized I was the same person.
But, whatever - let's just not engage with each other anymore? I'm here for productive discussion, if we are clashing to a point that isn't possible I would rather us just both avoid each other.
> So let's just not engage with each other anymore?
I'd be more curious to hear why you don't think calling my comment idiotic[1] is resorting to insults - that seems harder to deny, so I wonder what creative justification you might come up with?
> So let's just not engage with each other anymore?
100%. If you want to reply just to note you in fact do not consider saying 'Bullshit' vulgarity' or defend how calling a comment idiotic is not resorting to insults, I'll understand and might respond to that. If we are not discussing operating systems or problems with countries, I consider that a win since that thread would run its course very shortly, then we could be done with each other. Of course if you don't want to reply at all I'll consider that an even bigger win.
(I also disagree with your accusations -- but anyone who's read this conversation can see the evidence for themselves)
Not me. Feel free to quote the vulgar word I used that wasn't just quoting you.
> I also disagree with your accusations
Yes, incredibly, you disagree that calling a comment idiotic is resorting to an insult.
> but anyone who's read this conversation can see the evidence for themselves
Yes, they can see that you called my comment idiotic which is unambiguously and objectively resorting to an insult.
Anyway, I thought you wanted us to part ways?
So now you're admitting you insulted me after previously denying that you had?
I never called you an idiot, I stuck to facts and explained why I thought you were wrong.
> Anyway, I thought you wanted us to part ways?
If you read above, I said that if you must reply to this final thread that at least it will be over quickly, and that I will continue to reply to messages as I get notified of them if I feel I need to defend against misinformation (such as you denying you resorted to insults).
If you want our interacting to cease sooner, simply resist your urge to reply.
> I also don't think even you believe the stuff you're posting
Instead of choosing not to reply, you chose to continue the discussion instead of being done with me as you said you preferred, just to make a bad faith accusation.
You do understand that you're also engaging with me, right?
And that every comment you've made for the last hour has been directed at me as a person?
The difference is I said upfront that I would continue to reply to messages as I see them, as where you just said you wanted to be done yet keep making the effort to engage - even if it's just to make a bad faith accusation.
Edit: And interestingly as your below comment shows, you are manually refreshing to monitor replies which is an extra level of dedication.
> And that every comment you've made for the last hour has been directed at me as a person?
So? I keep getting notifications that you've replied, and I am not engaging in any other discussions so far.
HN sends notifications about replies? How did you set that up?
...who doesn't like rebooting when re-IP'ing an interface?!
Or maybe 2000...
...because the dropshadow cursor rocked!
(And Slackware on the Linux side)
There will never be a 'best' OS. They're all constantly improving in one way or another. Whether you appreciate the improvement or not, that's subjective.
Alpine is so much better from a minimalist point of view (a functional minimal desktop install is only 700mb, while on Void, Devuan and Gentoo it's about double that), and that it has security as a priority at the forefront is icing on the cake.
If Win2K would run modern software, it would be the Windows I use in a VM.
Windows 10 and 11 have telemetry and stability issues, don't respect user choices, force software on people, force updates and reboots, and have an interface mixed with 3 different frameworks - for starters.
You can only understand why Windows 7 was so loved if you relied on it and tried Vista before and Windows 8 after.
Vista made hardware absolutely crawl when it was new. Windows 8 was a UX disaster. In comparison, Windows 7 was fast and functional.
I guess you have to compare 7 to XP as well as the other option was to stay on XP forever. Windows 7 had a lot of improvements over XP though, most natively being 64 bit. So, the big difference between XP and 7 was modern software.
Other than the telemetry, Windows 10 was objectively better than 7. Although they did add a lot of bloat on top of 10 over time.
Some of the downsides other than telemetry:
- Not being able to select only security updates
- It requiring more technical hacking to ensure forced updates don't force reboots
- An embarrassing mix of interfaces, with the migration from the classic Control Panel only half done.
- The forced included software which also requires more hacking that in should to remove.
The GUI/UX/UI in Windows 10 is a total shitshow. The introduction of RCE "Apps" in contrast to native programs was also something terrible.
Today Ubuntu has a poor reputation in some of the userbase. Back then, it was much more universally liked.
Linux was just snappier, quicker. Like, noticeably so.
And it was also way cooler. I don't use windows nowadays, but at the time the GNU/Linux desktop was lightyears ahead. Compiz, beryl and all the crazy 3d madness of the time were just cool. It was an exciting time to use GNU/Linux on the desktop, and Canonical was a visionary company.
Such times have not come back so far, it all looks so dull and dead right now when compared to those times.
> Linux was just snappier, quicker. Like, noticeably so.
Eh, that seem like zealotry. Bechmarks could be mixed and both had advantages.
> And it was also way cooler.
For tech geeks that liked playing with tech, absolutely.
"revive an old computer with gnu/linux" has been a meme for like 25 years now. to some degree it's less true nowadays because most stuff run in the web browser, and web browsers are total memory hogs. but ad the same time, with any decent gnu/linux you won't be running spyware/adware and useless ai stuff nobody asked for so yeah i'm going to keep assuming linux is noticeably faster even if i haven't used a windows laptop for personal use in ~15 years.
> For tech geeks that liked playing with tech, absolutely.
yeah i'm a tech geek that likes playing with tech (easy bet given what website we're both posting on) -- so ?
More like 10/15, but sure.
That's more to do with up to date software though, really. Windows 10 when properly configured was perfectly snappy on older hardware.
> it's less true nowadays because most stuff run in the web browser,
I don't think it was ever really that true.
> with any decent gnu/linux you won't be running spyware/adware and useless ai stuff
Yeah bundled software sucks, but it's not fair to judge the OS with it ifit can be removed, and if tech users like yourself would be removing it.
> yeah i'm a tech geek that likes playing with tech (easy bet given what website we're both posting on) -- so ?
Just clarifying your statement was not in general terms.
Well, let's look at your statements:
> Windows 7 was objectively the best Windows, and Ubuntu is considered by many to be one of the worst distros.
You have two statements: one about the distribution of "goodness" as a function of Windows versions, and another about the distribution of "goodness" as a function of Linux distros.
So, logically, the question to answer if we want to get at your question is: how does the distribution of "goodness" compare across Linux and Windows?
Perhaps their answer might differ from yours. :)
Ah, those are fond memories. I had a similar experience with my first laptop when i was 13 or 14... Suddenly the new Ubuntu release (6.06? 6.10?) shipped with better drivers (nv?) and my display was correctly recognized as 1280x800 where as previously it was driven at 1024x764.
Felt like magic :)
Oh, to be young again...
FreeBSD always has from 0 to 1 WiFi maintainer. All of them were very talented and productive (Søren Schmidt, Adrian Chadd and Bjoern A. Zeeb among others!), but it is too complex and vast area to work alone. Especially beginning from 802.11n and beyond.
What are Qualcomm other WiFi offers? I mean, for PC, not embedded into smartphone chips.
Broadcom and Realtek is not better. Intel is not too great too (blobs in firmware, etc).
Firmware uploaded to a device CPU isn't really a problem as long as the blobs can be distributed, pretending that adding flash to every gadget to store the same blob makes a gadget better is just naive. I for one would prefer stateless peripherals.
I am guessing wrapping Windows drivers isn't really a thing anymore? I guess my naive question is really just could that be a more sustainable solution long term?
Corporate projects are not true free software. Contributing means that you deal with the OSS inner circle and the more powerful corporate inner circle.
Another reason is that people who produce real software are treated like garbage, especially if it is written in C. The "they trust me, dumb fucks" web developers rule over real software engineers.
If they want to ship working hardware, it would help for sure.
> I'm unlikely to write drivers for hardware I don't even own.
Oh, I see. You're assuming the users will write the driver. See, the point of this proposal is that the vendors should write the drivers and kernel infrastructure.
You know what's harder than writing a driver? Writing a driver for hardware that you don't have documentation or chip/board vendor support for because you're some random person instead of their direct customer and potential revenue stream.
Another perspective is that every maintainer of Linux drivers starts as a Linux user, so driving up Linux users will indirectly lead to more maintainers eventually, even if only a small bump.
Then if a Linux user starts out with a computer that is 100% Linux-compatible, they might at one point switch out the RAM or GPU or whatever to a new component, find it isn't compatible/as compatible and armed with their new knowledge, might attempt to contribute to existing driver/write a driver for it.
... and realize how sad the thing are. The Linux kernel expenses are minuscule compared with the 'various'.
A few government grants for open source hardware and drivers would help, but it goes without saying it isn’t happening at this time.
Am I missing something?
Using "you", personalized or not, implies that the person you're speaking to is one of the ones doing the action.
If the person you're speaking to isn't doing the action, "you" is inappropriate in that context, but "we" is appropriate because we're all on team human at least (you included).
To illustrate this point, I'm not the only one running into your confusing wording and replying to you about it here.
edit: "you" was edited to "one", which makes more sense to me at least, thanks for responding to feedback positively!
And you're also mistaken about applying the same implication semantics to semantically different words.
If there is no "I" in the people you're accusing of wrongdoing, then there is no FirmwareBurner in it, either. That's the mistake. It's the one you fixed.
When you're referring to a group of people, "you" is only appropriate to use when the person you're speaking to is a member of that group. I don't see any group here, of which they're a member and you aren't.
But hey, on the plus side, we're all in the same group when it comes to being human, so "we" is totally fine, too (I personally prefer language that brings us together).
By allowing more accessible and higher-quality tooling than email threads. It's amazing that the development workflow has chugged on for so long, but most people (outside of finance, here be dragons) work with modern tools in their day jobs... they're not gonna take their time and try to work with the limitations of arcane processes. Unfortunately, the "old guard" is firmly entrenched and has zero interest in moving with the times. Just look at the recent Rust/Apple SoC support drama.
In the end it's conflicting viewpoints and, let's be frank, a lack of money - the Linux kernel maintainers are overworked as it is, and each new piece of less-than-perfect code is likely to cause the maintainers a ton of work. More money would at least IMHO allow for getting new drivers up to speed.
But I won't be putting up any code either way until the culture moves on from little kings calling things they don't like (and that don't really affect them) "cancer". I'm not holding my breath.
I've started wondering what's next after Linux because it doesn't feel sustainable long term any more. There's a small trickle of fresh blood but not enough to keep the kernel project healthy IMO.
I think the filter they have is working as intended, as demonstrated by this sentence. I'd agree the pipeline isn't the best, but it's not crap either, it evidently worked decades ago, and it also evidently works today, even though you seem to think it doesn't.
So in this case, they'd probably prefer contributors that can see the good and bad parts of a process, instead of a knee-jerk reaction to it calling it "crap", and prefer those contributors to be more amendable to existing workflows than many seem to want to be, as they've found their workflow to work (even if they aren't perfect).
Given that the arcane state of tooling around the Linux kernel is a constant complaint in any "why do you not want to work on the Linux kernel" thread, the process evidently does not work, for it excludes many MANY MANY people from working on the Linux kernel.
At the moment, the kernel development process is mostly gatekeeping to keep moderation effort at bay - anyone running any major FOSS project on Github is all too aware of that - but in the end IMHO they're throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and by the time the lack of new people becomes too evident to ignore it will be too late.
If I encounter a minor issue in most pieces of software, I can submit a drive-by github PR in minutes. I wouldn't know where to start with Linux, and the "activation energy" is just too high for me to bother. (I'm not saying they should use GitHub specifically, but some kind of git forge with a web UI would be great)
Your OS kernel is NOT a code base where you want a lot of people making “drive-by PRs”
Plenty of changes aren't suitable for drive-by contributions, but many are.
Where the process really looks different to me is for large, extensive work, not the drive bys. Whether it should change is another debate, but I think the intentionality of gatekeeping narrative via process is oversold.
with a such a hostile pipeline, it's no surprise there aren't more kernel devs
Mandatory: https://xkcd.com/2347/
Especially since this was the only maintainer of the Wifi driver.
We aren't going to like it but it is inevitable sooner or later.
If you can get an AI to produce useful patches for the kernel then you can submit them right now. No conversation needed.
If you think AI is going to replace all of the human interactions, research, physical testing, and navigation of the companies and communications required to make this work then you either don’t understand what goes into writing drivers or you have an extremely unrealistic idea of how AI works.