Jeff Vian wrote:
On Thu, 2006-11-09 at 12:56 -0700, Kim Lux wrote:
On Thu, 2006-11-09 at 20:39 +0100, Ingemar Nilsson wrote:
You choose to use a quasi-bleeding edge distro, and then are
horrified by
the requirements that come along with running such a distro.
Not only a quasi bleeding edge distro, but a testing kernel too. :)
How many times to I have to say the fact that the kernel was testing
DOESN'T MATTER ! There was NO PROBLEM with the new kernel ! The
problem was that I had to BUILD a driver for the nvidia hardware !
THAT WAS THE PROBLEM!!! The nvidia driver had to be built for the
testing kernel and you are still whining about that.
No, that is not the problem. A problem, which is not being addressed
by the responses, is not having a published standard interface for
Linux drivers to which they can be written. Lacking such a published
standard interface for Linux drivers, subtle (or not so subtle)
kernel changes force drivers to be re-written over and over. And that's
a problem. Even for so-called OSS drivers. Tracking a moving interface
is not a good policy for code reuse.
You are using testing packages, many of which are never released at the
version in testing, and you still whine about manually having to build
your own video driver. GROW UP.
If Linux would GROW UP, as you put it, then this wouldn't happen
with each new kernel release.
Instead of reacting to the tone of the complaint, try doing a little
introspection and see whether there isn't a kernel of truth hiding
in there, and a way in which Linux could grow up a little. Having
a published supported driver interface would ease support not only
for NVIDIA drivers, but for all drivers. And that's something worth
considering.
(No pun intended above.)
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
