[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Possibly offtopic : Binary only driver



Le dimanche 21 novembre 2004 Ã 20:21 +0000, Mike Hearn a Ãcrit :
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 11:44:39 -0800, Stephen Pollei wrote:
> > Not really, It just means that many of the kernel developers want to
> > only support that which they can. Thats why they added the tainted flag.
> > Binary-only modules don't benefit them and they can't help you with it. 
> 
> They could support kernels with binary only modules. Other OS vendors do
> it. Other open source projects do it. They choose not to however.

And other OS vendors have systems which are a major PITA to
install/maintain.

I'll take Linux any day thank you. The process to get drivers in the
kernel at least means you don't have funnies like a resident app for
every single device/card you've bought that flashes the vendor logo at
you all the day, launches an hideous (but colorfoul) vendor UI to change
a score of parameters no one in his right mind would care about and can
not be cleanly uninstalled because the QA theme of the vendor was so
mesmerised by the rainbow colortheme they utterly forgot to test it. Did
I mention it usually crashes every SP or two ?

Linux is driver heaven in comparison. Getting drivers in the kernel (or
Xorg, foomatic, etc) is an open process that keeps the hardware vendors
honest.

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]