On Feb 07, 2006, at 14:45, David Chow wrote:
Before I continue this discussion, I would really want to clarify
who am I before get discriminated by end-users and developers,
because I am both.
[offtopic babble about credentials]
We do not discriminate based on "end-user" or "developer", we
discriminate based on productivity. So far this thread has been
extremely counterproductive and wasted a lot of my bandwidth and
time. As a result, I am now discriminating against you for wasting
my time. Welcome to my killfile. (I still felt the need to point
out your grievous logical errors, but don't bother replying because
this is the last time I'm going to bother wasting time on this thread)
[junk about commercial development models]
We do not care about your snazzy dev-model ideas, we have one that
works for us. We do not care about making things easier for
commercial out-of-tree drivers, _end_ _of_ _story_. Any arguments
about that issue are just offtopic flames.
Why would the maintainers bother to maintain the drivers if the
driver development work is now back to the hardware vendor, like
drivers for other platform did? I think someone mis-understood the
whole idea is to "GET RID OF DRIVER MAINTENANCE", belive it or not,
it belongs to the vendor, not here. If the driver releases as GPL,
you can still make your own changes, but it doesn't have to be in
main source tree.
WRONG. Driver maintenance is a 2-part effort. The Linux kernel API
is *not* stable for a lot of good reasons, and therefore the drivers
must be in-tree to make it possible to fix drivers when we change the
API. Hardware companies are _expected_ to be good citizens and
maintain their own drivers, fix bugs, etc. If your driver sucks,
nobody will buy your hardware to use on linux.
Linux will not sail to major desktop unless a decent DDK (driver
development kit) exists.
This is wrong. There are a lot of companies that make great server
hardware out there whose drivers are in the stock kernel, and by your
argument "Linux will not sail to major servers unless a decent DDK
exists", which is blatantly false.
/Documentation/stable_api_nonsense.txt is only a document totally
written by a programmer sense
Absolutely, and from the programmer point of view, that's all that
its nothing about people who don't want to compile the drivers
This is the job of a distro
and has assumed drivers should be maintained by the community.
Community includes the people making the hardware
But strictly speaking, it shouldn't. Please refer to the process of
making a driver from a manufacturers point of view and consider
user using old OS'es which don't want to upgrade.
You don't want to upgrade, you don't get new hardware support, simple
as that. Upgrading my Debian testing between 2.6 versions has been
really painless despite massive internal changes and restructuring,
and Debian isn't really even a user-friendly distro.
but freedom of speech exists, right?
As does my freedom to ignore you. Plonk.
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
GCM/CS/IT/E/U d- s++: a18 C++++>$ ULBX*++++(+++)>$ P++++(+++)>$ L++++
(+++)>$ !E- W+++(++) N+++(++) o? K? w--- O? M++ V? PS+() PE+(-) Y+ PGP
+ t+(+++) 5 X R? !tv-(--) b++++(++) DI+(++) D+++ G e>++++$ h*(+)>++$ r
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
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]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]