> Gatekeeping is toxic.

Learning what must be done to implement a device driver in order for it to operate properly is not "gatekeeping." It is a prerequisite.

> I love agents explaining me projects I don‘t know.

Awesome. This is one way to learn about implementations and I applaud you for benefiting from same.

> Recently I cloned sources of Firefox and asked qwen-code (tool not significant) about the AI features of Firefox and how it‘s implemented. Learning has become awesome.

Again, this is not the same as implementing an OS device driver. Even though one could justify saying Firefox is way more complicated than a Linux device driver (and I would agree), the fact is that a defective device driver can lock-up the machine[0], corrupt internal data structures resulting in arbitrary data corruption, and/or cause damage to peripheral devices.

0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernel_panic

> Learning what must be done to implement a device driver in order for it to operate properly is not "gatekeeping." It is a prerequisite.

Apparently it's not, though. The author here had some baseline knowledge of how Linux kernel modules work, but the impression I got is that they would not have been able to do this on their own without a lot of learning.

> the fact is that a defective device driver can lock-up the machine[0], corrupt internal data structures resulting in arbitrary data corruption, and/or cause damage to peripheral devices.

Now that's some gatekeeping right there. "Only experts can write kernel modules" is a pretty toxic attitude to have.

[dead]