Fedora - DELL ?

[Arthur Pemberton]

On 3/16/07, BRUCE STANLEY <bruce.stanley at prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>
> Hikaru Amano <kagesenshi.87 at gmail.com> wrote:
>  On 3/16/07, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> > Please explain then. Keep in mind that I have windows machines that
> > haven't crashed in years with hardware that Linux doesn't support and
> > Macs with 3rd party drivers that are equally stable so I won't believe
> > it if you say that can't happen.
>
> the linux kernel changes rapidly ... closed source kernel modules
> provided by companies hard to keep up with the changes - fixing the
> kernel module due to the kernel change equates to cost , and
> something related to cost, the manufacturers wont do it fast or maybe
> they'll stop it altogether because they couldnt keep up with it .. as
> for Macs, their hardwares are selected to be compatible with the OS in
> the first place, thats why Linux need to have OEM support, so that we
> can get machines with hardwares tuned for Linux ..
>
> yes we can make the kernel and programs be backward compatible for old
> drivers (like what microsoft doing) .. but that will result in the
> kernel being bloated day-to-day (like what you see in windows,
> ridiculously large)
>
> closed source drivers "taints the kernel" because after you install
> it, foss developers cant fix it - why? - because its closed source of
> course, yay~. The message is only for developers to identify which
> kernel problem they won't need to waste their time trying to debug
> it... and to the user side, its just a bunch of annoying message ...
> (perhaps a kernel parameter to silence this??)
>
> openly accepting closed source kernel modules will bring more problems
> if lots of manufacturer made closed sourced drivers - the kernel
> become harder to fix and/or improve - even now, sometimes when the
> kernel changes , Nvidia & ATi drivers breaks ... 2 broken and
> unfixable drivers are more than enough .. Linux doesnt need more ...
>
> my 2c
> --
> -================================================
>
> I have heard this arugment before and I don't buy it.
>
> Why does the driver interface have to change from kernal release to
> release anyway?

Maybe you might want to check out if that actually happens before
running your mouth/fingers about it.

> Develop a universal driver interface and leave it alone, then the
> hardware vendors will not have to keep re-inventing the wheel
> everytime a new version of the kernal comes out.

You assume they do. Any evidence?

-- 
Fedora Core 6 and proud