Slashdot Mirror
Should Linux Have a Binary Kernel Driver Layer?
zerojoker writes "The discussion is not new but was heated up by a blog entry from Greg Kroah-Hartman: Three OSDL Japan members, namely Fujitsu, NEC and Hitachi are pushing for a stable Kernel driver layer/API, so that driver developers wouldn't need to put their drivers into the main kernel tree. GKH has several points against such an idea." What do you think?
Texas has a Constitution with no "administrative" section. That being said, every law, whether new or an amendment is a constitutional change.
I think hardware manufacturers are in the right on this one, they want to develop drivers and peripherals without a constitutional amendment. Good thing all the way around IMHO.
Peace Out.
"This isn't a study in computer science, its a study in human behavior"
A: No. Next question.
But seriously, if we wanted binary only proprietary drivers, we'd be running Windows or MacOS. If you can't play by the rules, then fuck off. It's called OPEN SOURCE for a reason. Furthermore, if you are a hardware company, what do you care about the client side software? Are you selling hardware? Or are you really a shitty closed source software company in disguise? Note: this goes for you all hardware companies that pull this shit (I'm looking at you, ATI, with your buggy closed source user level "driver" libraries. Nvidia is only slightly better because their drivers don't crash on a switch between X and console).
Nathan's blog
You are telling me, that I need SPECIAL supported hardware to run Linux with its 'Free as in Freedom' drivers. And if I don't have that hardware, I better buy it, or no cake.
So, what you are telling me in other words, is that Linux is more expensive to run than Windows.
If that's the case, I spit on the general direction of the "Free" nature of Linux. I prefer it to also be as much free as in beer too in order to switch over. And from what you are telling me, it is not really cheaper than Windows. It has special needs, needs that are not always possible to satisfy (e.g. with laptops).
Look, Linux is an operating system. It's supposed to operate and help people do their WORK. Adding philosophical crap on something as flat as "computers and operating systems", is just laughable. The best operating system is the one that WORKS with the smallest needed effort. Windows does that pretty well. If Linux needs special extra work and purchase of extra hardware, then it's not a good operating system (from a user's point of view). Users don't care about the source code. Users want a working machine and OS.
If you are telling me that Linux is for programmers and geeks only (as logically concluded above), then it's an elitistic OS, and indeed, we all better stay away from it, and let it enjoy its 1% of market share. Then we will all be happy. Plain users will simply ignore it and elitists will live happy in their Linux dreamland of the few.