The "deal" in question was imaginary person A offering patches to the kernel to fix the articles's PCIe allocation, and the Kernel maintainers hypothetically refusing the patches on the grounds that it would break compatibility with drivers and so it cannot happen. Then the comment that the drivers could be updated to match, so the patch could hypothetically happen. There is NO entitlement anywhere in this imaginary scenario, there is no demand for anyone to write such patch, no expectation that someone get right on updating the drivers, no insinuation that someone owes a review of such a patch, nothing that you are so het up about has happened or been implied to happen, been demanded, expected, requested, suggested or implied.
> "Just accept that, as a non-contributing OSS user, you have zero leverage over which features other people pour their energy into."
Where did you come up with the idea that I am a non-contributing OSS user? Because it drives your superiority fantasy, I suspect, where "putdowns of the inferior" are the order of the day.
Very poor choice of words. If the deal is bad, request a refund!
I understand what you are trying to say, but i think that's just entitlement.
Just accept that, as a non-contributing OSS user, you have zero leverage over which features other people pour their energy into. If you do, that's a charitable exception and happens at the generosity of the one doing the work for you.
Edit: Let me quote the licensing terms that you agreed to and gave you permission to use the linux kernel at all: