Slashdot Mirror
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."
Next thing you know there won't be any reason anymore to stay with XP :)
StarTrek.org Free Webmail
What gets me is that this would be geared for either for distributions trying to enhance the user's "linux experience" or just to help newbies configure their devices "painlessly".
Meanwhile, anyone with an ATI card, for example, would still be just as dead in the water as before. Of course, I would be curious to see how well this turns out.
Join the TWIT army now!
would be great if i could simply #apt-get install sblive or #apt-cache search wintv not neccessarily wanting apt to do it but just something as easy as apt.
What do want to do then? Write assembly in your application to get to a device? Read out loud Hardware - Abstraction - Layer.
If getting drivers becomes that easy, I'll be considering atleast dual-booting. Drivers have always been something that have kept me away from Linux, but if they're as easy to find as plugging in a device, I'll switch in no time. Now, if only those manufacturers would put out some decent quality drivers, I wouldn't have much reason to stay on Windows.
and distro just has to make sure all drivers are compiled as modules (I think that is done already) and that the kernel is always latest (not done yet, too much work, and sometimes a bad idea when a point release fucks up something). Magic, then you do not even need to know which driver, all are included. Only clear con I see is bandwidth.
What, like a kernel?
As cute as that little pun is, PnP on WinNT 5.x Just Works(TM) the vast majority of the time and life is good. It's one area were Windows has a clear advantage over Linux and it's great to see the gap is finally starting to be closed.
Though I fear Linus' hardliner stance on ABI compatibility will hinder all this. Idealogical issues aside, from a user's standpoint a stable ABI for drivers is a significant plus for a desktop OS. I can only hope at some point the Linux kernel becomes stable enough for it to be considered.
That's only part of the issue. Lots of people don't want a KDE and Gnome merger because of philosophical differences on what a desktop should be like. I do, however, wish that on many forked or duplicated projects people would take just a second to think about who, besides themselves, a fork (or duplication) would actually benefit. When the forked or new version provides no significant new features, it's probably doing more harm than good.
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
You missed the real reason for this tactic: to `encourage' hardware manufacturers to play nice and release the source code to their drivers by making open source drivers the path of least resistance.
A.)The HAL had nothing to do with drivers!
B.)Drivers are written by hardware makers NOT Microsoft.
3.) The people who make the drivers now know *how* to write the drivers. They just dont.
Something like this isn't the only thing holding linux back, but it would be a big help. I find it pretty frustrating that everytime you want to update the kernel, you have to recompile and setup all those non-builtin drivers to get things working again. At the very least, it would be nice if the kernel had at least some minimal guarantees that drivers compiled for one major revision of the kernel (i.e. the 2.4 series or 2.6 series) worked on all minor versions. At the moment, any time there's some little security bug requiring a kernel upgrade, you need to recompile your drivers or else force them to run for a version they weren't compiled for and risk something breaking.
So, someone creates a stable as in abi/api HAL for linux. Then all sorts of manufaturers start releasing binary only drivers. Hypotheticly these are of good quality and we don't wind up with the windows BSOD type problems, this is very unlikely. We still get lots of binary only drivers with wierd licensing that limits distribution and what you can do with the hardware. Because drivers for stuff are avalible noone have interest in maintaining open drivers. Linux becomes as encombered as windows when you want to do anthing with it besides desktop PC. Forget having a cheep OS with lots of hardware support to build and sell your custom solutions with. Now since the hardware support will still probably be better and more complete on that M$ os all those little embeded things are gonna end up with winCE/pocketPc200X/XPembeded or whatever. This will kill the one market where Linux is begging to become the player to beat rather then the other option. If this takes off linux is gonna end up where it was five years ago on the desks of us geeks, rather then were it is now on half of the little and BIG network appliences out there even if it is unknow to the user. Once that happens we will lose lots of the corporte support and contributes to the kernel as well. Linus made the right call to not stabilize the ABI and force vendors to either make open drivers or at least have to put up with a wrapper.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
You missed the real reason for this tactic: to `encourage' hardware manufacturers to play nice and release the source code to their drivers by making open source drivers the path of least resistance.
/., ad nauseam et infinitum.
And we all see how well that's worked for many inkjet printers, essentially any graphics card, those Philips webcams that were recently mentioned on
"Modules are all fine and good, but that still requires a stub for that particular module to be compiled in the kernel"
No it doesn't. The vast majority of such modules use generic APIs that exist in the kernel anyway. Unless you're removing whole subsystems (e.g. not just one manufacturer's SCSI card, but all SCSI-like devices including USB storage, Firewire storage, etc.) you won't reduce kernel footprint on disk or in RAM.
What you've done is waste a lot of your time in order to make yourself feel better. I'm not in the least bit interested in stopping you, but don't pretend there's some technical justification for your time wasting in earshot of me, and that includes Slashdot.
and see how stable it is. Much as I hate Microsoft (and I do), Windows XP is a stable operating system when it's running good quality, name brand software/hardware. At least the desktop is, no comment on server stuff. Where you run into problems is all the crappy 3rd party drivers and add ins that run in the background and make tons of changes to they system. If you start adding that stuff to Linux you'll have the same problems. On the other hand, Linux's openness makes adding this crap harder, and often unecessary...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Yeah, but the MLA is full of shit. Despite the fact that some English language authorities may deem it incorrect, I find that an adequate and far less awkward solution is to say "when the user plugs in their new hardware device".
I honestly have very little respect for the MLA guidelines. With bibliographies and paper formatting, the specifics of the format is not what's important. What's important is that the information is there. Whether I put a comma, period, semicolon or whatever else between the various elements of my bibliographical citations means nothing as long as the information is there.
I find that an adequate and far less awkward solution is to say "when the user plugs in their new hardware device".
Is that grammatically correct? Shouldn't it be "when users plug in their new hardware device"?
Already development is taking place in the 2.6 branch rather than a 2.7 one, as used to be the case. It is now up to the distros - as far as I've understood - to provide a stable kernel and update it with selected patches.
Couldn't a distro create and maintain a stable ABI for the kernel line it distributes? I'm assuming if one of the major distros does it, others will follow suit and will create a de-facto standard if lots of drivers spring up for it (perhaps with backing from major hardware vendors).
Would such a move significantly limit the applicability of patches with future work from the developers, to the ABI-stable version? My simplistic thinking is that the distro would leave out anything that breaks the ABI spanning a reasonable time-frame (e.g. 2 years). Only when something really cool happens, it would introduce a new "stable" ABI including any blocked functionality. This would suck if often cool new stuff can only be added by breaking the ABI and thus the distro gets left behind.
Could someone with the necessary technical knowledge enlighten us regarding the feasibility of such a thing? Is the ABI so constantly morphing?
To err is human, but to forgive is beyond the scope of the Operating System...
So? You're asking people who are doing things *in their spare time* to give you a deadline for fixing something that may be needed by exactly one person (you).
If you want help feel free ask what the current state of the driver is, but don't expect anyone to do anything about it unless you're prepared to help, or give them money.
btw. MS are exactly the same. Try asking them when 'feature x' will work. They'll want money before you'll get a sensible answer about it (in that case you don't even have the option of doing it yourself).
Not true. Windows won't actually -download- them for you, but if it finds a driver it thinks it is right, it'll "install" it for you.
I was actually just thinking about this sort of thing the other day ... with a Gentoo slant of course.
I'd just set up hotplug, which I'm now using for a number of reasons, my Alcatel USB ADSL modem, Canon Digital Camera, USB MP3 player, etc. It dawned on me that these devices are supposed to have unique identifer codes, and that it would be great if *someone* would keep a centralised database of codes against software / config changes. Then I thought a device being added could trigger an 'emerge' process on my Gentoo box and an 'etc-update' to merge in the config file changes.
Of course there are a lot of missing pieces in my ideas. But anyway, I agree with the general idea. Good on 'em!
"Hardware Abstraction Layer cos we all know how well that worked in Windows NT "
Yeah, all my hardware works.
"Derp de derp."
what I'm waiting for is linux programs to include all the headers and such that they need to install. Package developers need to do more like Gentoo so all required files for any given program are downloaded automatically or included with the program... until then Linux will never make it main stream onto desktops.
.DLL's"... don't you think that user is going to be a bit stumped, then become angery because they have to hunt on the internet for stuff they have absolutely NO CLUE about??
Take the average windows person. If they install a program, and that program says "This requires this other 'program' to run, and also needs these
Who will maintain this fork? It will get crustier and crustier and crustier due to the absolute need to NEVER break a binary only driver. Once it gets crusty enough, it won't be possible to backport the changes from Linus' kernel which WILL continue to be developed? Furthermore, this fork will be x86 only. The only real reason this fork will have to exist will be for consumer x86 desktops. This will put off even more devs.
I seriously doubt that you'll find a group of kernel devs who will willingly inflict that situation on themselves. Remember that leak of Windows 2000 source? At least 15% percent of it turned out be kluges meant to prevent particular applications from breaking. We DON'T need to go there.
While this is a bit off topic, its relevant.
Don't misunderstand me, as I have the up most respect for the guy, but after reading some of his comments about vendors approaching him about drivers, and his refusal to even discuss a HAL layer ( which IS the right way to, even if he doesnt want to deal with it ), I can see that the arrogance of the Linux community is starting to rub off. ( actually, if the article is correct, it may have actually reduced my respect for him as he's acting more like a child.. ).
Yes its his kernel and he can do with what he pleases, I understand this. But I also understand he would like it to continue to succeed, and being an ass wont advance that cause a bit. Look where it gets Theo..
I do expect to be modded down for this of course, but I see the 'attitude' as the #2 problem with Linux in general. ( #1 being the convoluted un-structured nature in general, which effects things in a detrimental way a lot more then many want to admit. ).
Until people get off their high horse and start acting professional instead of condescending, things here will have just about topped out, and the market share will be stagnant.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Reverse gender discrimination? How is that different than gender discrimination?
"Where you run into problems is all the crappy 3rd party drivers and add ins that run in the background and make tons of changes to they system. If you start adding that stuff to Linux you'll have the same problems. "
Am I the only one amused by the above? Here's a hint: What is one of the strengths of the Windows platform that fanboys bring up?
Answer: All the 3rd party hardware and software that runs on it.
Here's another: What is it that all the "binary drivers and closed source programs are OK" Linux advocates covet so much?
Answer 3rd party hardware and software.
then exercise your freedom of choice, and stop using Linux.
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
The whole fricken point of Linux being a better OS is that a crappy 3rd party program won't bring down the whole OS.
Windows, however, is so fragile that a crappy program can BSOD/Crash/reboot it.
The point would be valid about crappy 3rd party drivers though.
Why are you changing their OS?
>. Cos months later I got a phone call from my folks asking me how to get rid of those pr0n popups and stuff
They could be using FireFox. Or IE with activeX disabled and a pop-up blocker. Or IE with simply SP2 installed. Or Opera. Automatic updates turned on. And a copy of ad aware or spybot.
You might as well teach them about spyware and untrustworthy downloads. Regardless of their platform they will have to deal with it. If desktop Linux took off next year there would be all sorts of spyware for it. XPI apps. "Buddy" apps. All running in userland.
Best to teach them smart internet skills than just throwing them a new OS.
And for balance, contrast it with the way it works on a properly-maintained linux machine:
1. Plug in USB mass storage device.
it works.
PHP is the solution of choice for relaying mysql errors to web users.