Then there are no point and case is closed, right?
Posted Aug 5, 2009 22:17 UTC (Wed) by mikov
In reply to: Then there are no point and case is closed, right?
Parent article: A tempest in a tty pot
Sure. And we have many OSes which promised and failed to deliver that: Windows, Solaris, etc. It just does not work. Drivers from NT don't work in Windows 2000, drivers from Windows 2000 crash the Windows XP, drivers from Solaris 8 are unusabel in Solaris 10, etc.
Well, I am talking about a source level API, so I don't see your point really. Plus, I disagree with your example. The vast majority of drivers did work between Windows versions. Speaking both as a user and as an ex-Windows kernel developer.
What I do see is the wish to reduce number of problems for manufacturers by increasing number of problem for users and developers - and I can not agree that it's good idea.
I am sorry but you are dead wrong. Very ironically just today (about hald an hour ago) I encountered exactly the problem I am describing.
I was asked to troubleshoot a Debian Lenny image on a new batch of POS machines. Well, guess what, Lenny's kernel 2.6.26 does not support the network adapter (Intel 82567LM-3).
So, WTF am I supposed to do? All the "wisdom" against out-of-tree drivers and stable API expressed in the numerous responses does not help me a bit! Should I perhaps install a newer kernel version? Huh? What about security updates? Backport a driver from 2.6.28? I don't have time to do that, and I am not a network driver expert.
Fortunately for me, Intel maintains an out-of-tree driver at http://e1000.sf.net/ . An out of tree driver saved the day! As usual and as expected.
Unless somebody can offer me a better solution than this out-of-tree driver, I don't see how the arguments carry any weight.
to post comments)