Re: Drivers -- below the OS?
Posted Aug 10, 2007 11:45 UTC (Fri) by landley
In reply to: Re: Drivers -- below the OS?
Parent article: Re: Drivers -- below the OS?
> while adding clear and present business value
Then you go on to mention "adding value" twice more, and then quote The
Innovator's Dilemma. It's a good book, which is why I reviewed it for
The Motley Fool in 1999:
However, my question to you is, what's with all the pointy hair? Linus
is talking technology, and you're talking about marketing to corporate
customers. How are you _not_ making his point for him?
Adding layers neither reduces complexity nor adds stability. It never
has. It didn't with microkernels, it still doesn't now, and on a
conceptual level it's unlikely to start. One runaway driver does a DMA
to the wrong physical memory or lets a device lock the PCI bus and never
release it, and it's game over. Virtualization allows IBM to come up
with yet more glossy brochures to push mainframes as a replacement for
clusters of PCs (although the price of electricity and air conditioning
in rackmounted space has been making that case for them for years). But
for the millions of laptops out there, there's never enough RAM and
chopping it in half to share between two OS images is not an improvement.
(Of course I extensively use QEMU's ability to emulate Arm and Mips and
such, but I'm weird. :)
P.S. A few months ago I briefly had a HPaq laptop that was "built for
vista" and nothing else had drivers. (Ubuntu, Knoppix, nothing.) When I
returned it truthfully saying "Vista won't run any of my software and
nothing else recognizes this hardware", the salesbeing actually suggested
that I download Microsoft's Virual PC thing and run a copy of XP under
that, having Vista talk to the actual hardware. This was apparently a
common problem Best Buy was seeing, and that was the recommended
solution. I paid the 15% restocking fee to give the darn thing back, and
got a Dell preinstalled with Ubuntu, which I've been fairly happy with.
to post comments)