Why stop at kernel space. You might as well break all of user space every so often. If everything is open source it shouldn't be an issue to fix all broken Linux software right?

People don't want you to break their code.

> You might as well break all of user space every so often. If everything is open source it shouldn't be an issue to fix all broken Linux software right?

What an uninformed take.

The Linux kernel has a strict "don't break userspace" policy, because they know that userspace is not released in lock step with the kernel. Having this policy is certainly a burden on them to get things right, but they've decided the trade offs make it worth it.

They have also chosen that the trade offs involved in having a stable driver API are not worth it.

> People don't want you to break their code.

Then maybe "people" (in this case device manufacturers who write crap drivers) should pony up the money and time to get their drivers mainlined so they don't have to worry about this problem. The Linux kernel team doesn't owe them anything.

>because they know that userspace is not released in lock step with the kernel

They also know out of tree drivers are not released lock step with the kernel.

>They have also chosen that the trade offs involved in having a stable driver API are not worth it.

It sucks for driver developers to not have a stable API regardless if they think its worth it or not.

>should pony up the money and time to get their drivers mainlined so they don't have to worry about this problem.

They don't want to reveal their trade secrets.

>The Linux kernel team doesn't owe them anything.

Which is why Google ended up offering the stable API to driver developers.

It happens all the time with Glibc, Glib, GTK, Qt, etc

Those breaking changes often are years apart which I sn much better than what the kernel currently offers.