Simplifying Linux Driver Installation

prostoalex writes "O'Reilly Network posts an update on Project Utopia that produced Hardware Abstraction Layer for Linux simplifying device changes. They also link to the Driver on Demand project on SourceForge, whose goal is to create a central database to enable Linux desktops download the drivers automatically when the user plugs in her new hardware device."

Comments

Re:Could distros do this anyway?

[The Vulture]

Maintaining a stable ABI is pretty darned difficult without proper planning. Typically two of the things that pose difficulty are function calls (the API), and the internal data structures (new variables added or removed, which breaks binary compatibility).

Say you have a function, foo, and it takes three integer arguments. So, here's your theoretical function:

int foo (int a, int b, int c)
{
int d = 42;
... rest of foo...
}

Now, say all of a sudden, you decide that the variable d in foo should be passed in (maybe d being 42 is correct for all but one variant of hardware device). At this point, you have two options:
1. Update function foo to include support for parameter d:

int foo (int a, int b, int c, int d)
{
...code of foo...
}

This breaks the binary compatibility (well, and source for that matter). Probably you'd see segmentation faults/invalid memory accesses, etc.

2. Create a new function (say, foo2) that includes support for d, and maintains backwards compatibility:

int foo2 (int a, int b, int c, int d)
{
... code from function foo...
}

Then, update foo as such:

int foo (int a, int b, int c)
{
foo2(a, b, c, 42)
}

Existing drivers don't see that foo has changed, and new drivers needing the extra parameter can use foo2. Binary (and source) compatibility is retained, but it becomes a major pain in the butt for the developers. Imagine several of these changes happening, and you (possibly) end up with foo2 through foo15.

Quite frankly, I can see why Linus doesn't want to do it, for both technical and the ideals behind it. Personally, I believe it's the ideals that he favors, rather than the technical side of it. That said, on the x86, maintaining this might not be so bad, but maybe on other platforms it is more difficult. Back when software was typically written in assembly (my favorite example that comes to mind is GEOS on the Commodore 64, it had a huge API, which retained backwards compatibility with older versions), not only did you have to make sure that the parameters passed in were the same (usually on the stack, or registers, or inline), but you also had to make sure that the entry-point addresses stayed the same too (most often accomplished via a jump table).

-- Joe

Re:Neat!

[cbiltcliffe]

1. Cut and Paste don't work

Always worked fine for me, since about 1998.
Winboys complain that Linboys say Windows crashes. In 1998, it did. (Incidentally, it still does now. Admittedly, less often, but the only reason you never see it on XP is that it automatically reboots, rather than sitting there with the BSOD.)
Yet, the Winboys continually complain about problems with Linux that were solved in 2000 or earlier.

2. Games

There are plenty of Linux-only games available, and lots of the good ones that use OpenGL, rather than DirectX crap, have Linux ports. If a developer uses a platform-specific 3D API, then refuses to do a Linux port because it would be essentially a complete rewrite to use a platform-independent 3D API, that they could have used in the first place.....it's not Linux's fault. Blame the developer, for being short-sighted and stupid.

3. Font display is awful

Again, 1998 problem. Get yourself up to date, and see my answer to number 1.

4. Aplication installation is awful, poorly integrated with desktop(s)

KPackage, Synaptic, YaST, and many other package managers will install just about anything on most distros. Sure, there's the odd one that doesn't work, but you run across that with Windows, too. Ever try installing Norton Anti-Virus 2001 on Windows XP? Both released in the same year, but they're incompatible.
One more thing...if you'd been using Konqueror to post your message, it would have let you know that you spelled 'application' incorrectly. Nice to see IE being so innovative.....NOT!

5. 86 different text editors... why?

Notepad, Wordpad, DOSedit, TextPad, Boxer, Zeus, GWD Text Editor, EditPlus.....
All text editors for Windows. And the first three come bundled - and installed by default - with Windows XP.

6. Some very important web sites only work with IE

Like what? Windows Update? I have yet to run across any website that doesn't work with anything other than IE, with the exception of Panda Software's Activescan. Unfortunately, it's ActiveX only. Again, not the fault of Linux, but the fault of a poor programmer who used a platform-specific technology to provide a function that could be provided with a platform-independent technology. Trend's housecall, however, works with Java, so will run on just about anything.

7. General lack of polish, little (and some big) things inexplicably not working

Wireless networking randomly popping up and down. Unrecognized hardware being completely ignored and hidden during install, rather than warning the user. Running any old twit as admin by default.
All examples of lack of polish and foresight in Windows.

8. Cut and Paste don't work
9. Font display is awful

Can't find enough arguments, so you need to repeat yourself? Not only that, but you chose to repeat the arguments that aren't valid, as the problem was solved years ago.

I know I'm not supposed to respond to trolls, but they're just so fun to shred into tiny little pieces.....