I don't see how any choice the Linux developers make forces phone manufacturers to do anything.

It's their choice to use Linux. They can abide by the license or not ship Linux.

Not to mention that there are many more or less stable APIs within the kernel (which even has versioned API support in places) such as Video4Linux which manufacturers seem dead set against using.

They do abide by the license, but it's also their choice whether to maintain cheap firmware for n years old devices, that they may not even have the license to distribute in source form.

Nonetheless, android mostly solved the issue of the kernel's lack of stable interface via their HAL.

They could also contribute to the Linux kernel like normal companies instead of shipping half broken binary blobs.

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.

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.

> 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.

Most of them buy parts from other companies, that often license the source only for inclusion.

This is a very myopic view of the industry.

I'm also saying the industry is broken, I'm well aware that the whole industry isn't really good enough on the software side.

I think the interfaces we are talking about are not part of upstream Linux. They will bolt on half baked stuff regardless of the interfaces Linux provides.

AFAIK the Android binary blobs are generally userspace, not kernel drivers.