On Sep 4, 2005, at 23:41:58, Alex Davis wrote:
--- Sean <[email protected]> wrote:
It's not a philosophical issue, it's what Linux _is_: an open source
operating system! That's what the developers are working on; not your
half-baked vision.
Um, ever hear of 'compromise'?? All I'm saying is let people use what
currently works until we can get an open-source solution.
Ndiswrapper's
existence is not stopping you (or anyone else) from pestering
manufacturers
for spec's and writing drivers. I look at ndiswrapper as a stop-gap
solution.
Hey, even Linus himself has said 'better a sub-optimal solution
than no solution'.
In any case, this discussion is moot because the kernel API is changing
for the better and there is a clearly defined fix for ndiswrapper that
will allow it to continue to work even with the new interface: allocate
a separate ndiswrapper stack (IE: Not the kernel stacks). The kernel is
under no obligation not to break out-of-tree drivers, etc, even semi-
non-
-binary-only ones such as ndiswrapper. Figure out how to fix it and
move on!
Cheers,
Kyle Moffett
--
Q: Why do programmers confuse Halloween and Christmas?
A: Because OCT 31 == DEC 25.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |