Just a general thought on removing drivers in general, when a driver is
removed because there's a better one, it would be good to have either a
message which shows up at "make oldconfig" time, or a file listing the
driver(s) which replace it.
Half the resistance to removing drivers is finding what is supposed to
replace the driver. For instance a list of all the drivers Adrian Bunk
has suggested to replace sk98lin, so users have something better than
searching the source code and/or LKML archive to find the next thing to try.
In general, if a driver works and is being used, until it *needs*
attention I see no reason to replace it. I don't agree that "it forces
people to try the new driver" is a valid reason, being unmaintained is
only a problem if it needs maintenance. I am not going to reopen that
topic, I'm simply noting a general opposition to unfunded mandates, and
requiring changes to kernel, module and/or rc.local config is just that.
--
Bill Davidsen <[email protected]>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 09:26:26PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>...
> In general, if a driver works and is being used, until it *needs*
> attention I see no reason to replace it. I don't agree that "it forces
> people to try the new driver" is a valid reason, being unmaintained is
> only a problem if it needs maintenance. I am not going to reopen that
> topic, I'm simply noting a general opposition to unfunded mandates, and
> requiring changes to kernel, module and/or rc.local config is just that.
Keeping a working unmaintained driver in the tree is not a big deal - we
have hundreds of them.
But you miss the main point that removal of an obsolete driver with a
new replacement driver forces people to finally report their problems
with the new driver, thus making the new driver better.
After all, the people who scream loudly that the new driver doesn't work
for them when the old driver gets removed are the people who should have
reported their problems with the new driver many years ago...
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 09:26:26PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>> ...
>> In general, if a driver works and is being used, until it *needs*
>> attention I see no reason to replace it. I don't agree that "it forces
>> people to try the new driver" is a valid reason, being unmaintained is
>> only a problem if it needs maintenance. I am not going to reopen that
>> topic, I'm simply noting a general opposition to unfunded mandates, and
>> requiring changes to kernel, module and/or rc.local config is just that.
>
> Keeping a working unmaintained driver in the tree is not a big deal - we
> have hundreds of them.
>
> But you miss the main point that removal of an obsolete driver with a
> new replacement driver forces people to finally report their problems
> with the new driver, thus making the new driver better.
>
You sure are proud of that new driver! People won't use it because the
old one is working fine, so you think it's fine to force them to make
changes in their system to use the new driver. Best case is it works
after costing the user some time, worst case it doesn't and breaks their
system, so they stop upgrading the kernel and don't get security fixes.
> After all, the people who scream loudly that the new driver doesn't work
> for them when the old driver gets removed are the people who should have
> reported their problems with the new driver many years ago...
>
Is it not obvious that the problem lies with the "when the old driver
gets removed" part, there is absolutely no effort needed to keep an old
driver, and if it's left in until some change requires rewriting every
module in the kernel, it's likely that either the old hardware or the
user will die before that ever happens again.
There is no benefit to users, if the old driver didn't work they would
have switched, there's no saving in support effort because, as you
pointed out, there are "hundreds of them" now.
This reminds me of Microsoft and XP vs. VISTA. MSFT is stopping sales
and support of XP to "force people to upgrade" to VISTA. You want to
"force people to upgrade" to newer drivers. The difference is that MSFT
at least has money as a reason, as far as I can tell the reason you want
to force people to use new drivers is because people put all the effort
into writing the new drivers and now most of us want to use the old one
if it works. We don't want to change configuration and hope something
else new works, because we know the old driver works for us and we want
to use our system instead of helping test the new driver.
I appreciate the effort it took to write new drivers, I believe most
users able to build their own kernels do. I use new drivers on new
systems because install picks them and a new system has to go through
shakedown in any case. I just wish that *you* could appreciate that a
driver change requires user effort and chance to find bugs in a new
driver, for each and every system, many of which are at EOL now. I wish
you valued the user's time as much as users value developer time.
*EOL - end-of-life, if your organization doesn't use the term. the "it's
paid for, use it but don't spend money on it" phase of ownership.
--
Bill Davidsen <[email protected]>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 02:07:41PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 09:26:26PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>>> ...
>>> In general, if a driver works and is being used, until it *needs*
>>> attention I see no reason to replace it. I don't agree that "it
>>> forces people to try the new driver" is a valid reason, being
>>> unmaintained is only a problem if it needs maintenance. I am not
>>> going to reopen that topic, I'm simply noting a general opposition
>>> to unfunded mandates, and requiring changes to kernel, module and/or
>>> rc.local config is just that.
>>
>> Keeping a working unmaintained driver in the tree is not a big deal -
>> we have hundreds of them.
>>
>> But you miss the main point that removal of an obsolete driver with a
>> new replacement driver forces people to finally report their problems
>> with the new driver, thus making the new driver better.
>>
> You sure are proud of that new driver! People won't use it because the
> old one is working fine, so you think it's fine to force them to make
> changes in their system to use the new driver.
Sometimes what is best in the global picture is not what everyone
subjectively considers to be the best thing for him.
Well, our whole society is based on this principle...
> Best case is it works
> after costing the user some time, worst case it doesn't and breaks their
> system, so they stop upgrading the kernel and don't get security fixes.
>...
Instead of sending a bug report?
When removing an obsolete driver adult people suddenly start whining
"the new driver didn't work for me when I tried it one year ago".
And when asking where they reported the bug in the new driver the answer
is that they didn't report it.
Driver development heavily relies on getting bug reports when something
doesn't work.
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 02:07:41PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>
>> Adrian Bunk wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 09:26:26PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>>>
>>>> ...
>>>> In general, if a driver works and is being used, until it *needs*
>>>> attention I see no reason to replace it. I don't agree that "it
>>>> forces people to try the new driver" is a valid reason, being
>>>> unmaintained is only a problem if it needs maintenance. I am not
>>>> going to reopen that topic, I'm simply noting a general opposition
>>>> to unfunded mandates, and requiring changes to kernel, module and/or
>>>> rc.local config is just that.
>>>>
>>> Keeping a working unmaintained driver in the tree is not a big deal -
>>> we have hundreds of them.
>>>
>>> But you miss the main point that removal of an obsolete driver with a
>>> new replacement driver forces people to finally report their problems
>>> with the new driver, thus making the new driver better.
>>>
>>>
>> You sure are proud of that new driver! People won't use it because the
>> old one is working fine, so you think it's fine to force them to make
>> changes in their system to use the new driver.
>>
>
> Sometimes what is best in the global picture is not what everyone
> subjectively considers to be the best thing for him.
>
> Well, our whole society is based on this principle...
>
>
>> Best case is it works
>> after costing the user some time, worst case it doesn't and breaks their
>> system, so they stop upgrading the kernel and don't get security fixes.
>> ...
>>
>
> Instead of sending a bug report?
>
To get the system working.
> When removing an obsolete driver adult people suddenly start whining
> "the new driver didn't work for me when I tried it one year ago".
>
> And when asking where they reported the bug in the new driver the answer
> is that they didn't report it.
>
> Driver development heavily relies on getting bug reports when something
> doesn't work.
If you don't see an ethical problem in removing a working driver which
is not taking support resources, in order to force people to test and
debug a driver they don't now and never would need, so that it might in
time offer them the same functionality those users already had... then I
can never make you see why technological extortion is evil. People have
always moved to new drivers without pushing because they were *better*,
guess that model is dead.
--
Bill Davidsen <[email protected]>
"Woe unto the statesman who makes war without a reason that will still
be valid when the war is over..." Otto von Bismark
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 20:08:13 EST, Bill Davidsen said:
> can never make you see why technological extortion is evil. People have
> always moved to new drivers without pushing because they were *better*,
> guess that model is dead.
And the drivers get better because the Code Fairy comes and sprinkles magic
bugfix dust all over them? And the Code Fairy knows where to sprinkle bugfix
dust because it can see where the Bugreport Fairy sprinkled Bugreport Dust?
Yes, people will move without pushing when the drivers are better. However,
remember that a major cultural motivation for the GPL is the concept of "give
back". And if a user can't be bothered to even give back enough to say
"wow, this blows, my Frobnozz9800 doesn't work with this driver", that's a
problem with the user. They're getting it for free, they should at least
give the developers the kindness of a bug report if something is broken...
<insert diatribe about users who just want free-as-in-beer>....
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 08:08:13PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>...
> If you don't see an ethical problem in removing a working driver which
> is not taking support resources, in order to force people to test and
> debug a driver they don't now and never would need, so that it might in
> time offer them the same functionality those users already had... then I
> can never make you see why technological extortion is evil.
>...
You miss one basic principle of free software:
Forks are allowed, so when you don't like the way some software is
developed you can always release a version of the software that is in
your eyes better.
And that's nothing evil, after all each distribution kernel is a fork of
the upstream kernel.
Hey, you can even use the 2.6.16 branch *I* do maintain to avoid what
you claim was an "ethical problem".
And if you don't like 2.6.16 either for whatever reason there's still no
ethical problem but only the technical problem of you not getting your
ass up and doing whatever is "better" in your opinion.
After all, free software is not driven by people whining but by people
doing stuff.
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 08:52:27PM -0500, [email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 20:08:13 EST, Bill Davidsen said:
>
> > can never make you see why technological extortion is evil. People have
> > always moved to new drivers without pushing because they were *better*,
> > guess that model is dead.
>
> And the drivers get better because the Code Fairy comes and sprinkles magic
> bugfix dust all over them? And the Code Fairy knows where to sprinkle bugfix
> dust because it can see where the Bugreport Fairy sprinkled Bugreport Dust?
>
> Yes, people will move without pushing when the drivers are better. However,
> remember that a major cultural motivation for the GPL is the concept of "give
> back". And if a user can't be bothered to even give back enough to say
> "wow, this blows, my Frobnozz9800 doesn't work with this driver", that's a
> problem with the user.
I don't understand why kernel developers always think that users spend
their whole time testing their new stuff. That is mostly true for a lot
of desktop users, but definitely not for servers. On a server, you may
*ignore* that a new driver exists for years. The basic make oldconfig
does the stuff right.
An old driver must spend some time marked "deprecated", if possible with
the config option changed so that at least *something* informs the admin
that it may soon be removed. It looks like this is something that people
building a kernel every day and never getting more than one week of uptime
do not understand. But there are many people who build once a year and
upgrade that often at most, unless there is a big security issue.
If the old driver simply keeps silently building when marked deprecated,
noone will notice. And as Bill pointed it out, we should also make sure
that when marked deprecated, the old one always refers to the new one so
that the guy noticing this during the build has time to set up a test
machine to try that new driver.
Not everyone has a mouse and a joystick attached to the computers he
builds kernels for...
Willy
Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Forks are allowed, so when you don't like the way some software is
> developed you can always release a version of the software that is in
> your eyes better.
>
What a silly thought. Nobody, I should hope, wants multiple Linuxes
competing and diluting the market. That's what went wrong with UNIX,
and it's what's wrong with BSD (and what gave Linux a foothold.) Read
your history; and for goodness sake, the less said on this the better.
> After all, free software is not driven by people whining but by people
> doing stuff.
Howling protest is not whining. The whining comes from those who want
to kill the old driver, which is reported to be used, works well and is
wanted. It sounds insecure to want to terminate one's competition with
such extreme prejudice. Let the old driver die of natural causes, if
that's its destiny. And don't whine if the new can't make it on its own
merits.
[email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 20:08:13 EST, Bill Davidsen said:
>
>
>> can never make you see why technological extortion is evil. People have
>> always moved to new drivers without pushing because they were *better*,
>> guess that model is dead.
>>
>
> And the drivers get better because the Code Fairy comes and sprinkles magic
> bugfix dust all over them? And the Code Fairy knows where to sprinkle bugfix
> dust because it can see where the Bugreport Fairy sprinkled Bugreport Dust?
>
Drivers get better because someone who finds a benefit in them also
finds a problem. They don't get better by developers looking for
intermittent, probably load dependent, bugs which effect eight year old
server hardware which was a low volume item, the developers are unlikely
to have, and which is in use providing services, not on someone's
desktop where it can reasonably be rebooted to test patches.
> Yes, people will move without pushing when the drivers are better. However,
> remember that a major cultural motivation for the GPL is the concept of "give
> back". And if a user can't be bothered to even give back enough to say
> "wow, this blows, my Frobnozz9800 doesn't work with this driver", that's a
> problem with the user. They're getting it for free, they should at least
> give the developers the kindness of a bug report if something is broken...
>
Not when drivers are "better" but when a new driver offers some benefit,
be it reliability, capability, etc. When the new driver offers not a
single benefit and the only "feature" is "possible unknown bugs," people
are not going to change, and I don't think forcing people off working
drivers is any more ethical than Microsoft killing XP to force people to
VISTA. Less ethical, actually, because MSFT is looking for profit, and
they make no pretense of caring about the users in any role but revenue
stream.
> <insert diatribe about users who just want free-as-in-beer>....
>
Insert it right next to the diatribe about developers who think that
because some new feature was a lot of work that Linus *must* put it in
the kernel, or users show show proper respect and gratitude and disrupt
their production hardware to test and debug some new code which offers
zero added functionality on that hardware. If you think downtime is
"free" then you have not been working in the right environments, or for
the right management.
--
Bill Davidsen <[email protected]>
"Woe unto the statesman who makes war without a reason that will still
be valid when the war is over..." Otto von Bismark
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 08:39:08 +0100, Willy Tarreau said:
> I don't understand why kernel developers always think that users spend
> their whole time testing their new stuff. That is mostly true for a lot
> of desktop users, but definitely not for servers. On a server, you may
> *ignore* that a new driver exists for years. The basic make oldconfig
> does the stuff right.
Been there, done that. We got a number of boxes that sit there for ages
between reboots and even longer between upgrades. Deploying Solaris 10 was
like a 2-year process for some of our boxes (when the boxes are running the
Oracle databases that house the enterprise business systems, and your
organizational budget is pushing the $1B/year mark, everybody gets *really*
cautious to avoid a CLM while upgrading... ;) And we may actually manage to
finally kill off our last AIX 4.3.3 box this quarter (4.3.3 was released all
the way back in Sep 1999, and EOL'ed back in 2004 - don't ask. :)
Of course, the difference is that we *expect* that there's a good chance that
if we try to subject that sort of box to 3 year's worth of updates, there's a
good chance we'll discover that some driver has been EOL'ed or otherwise
problematic on now-ancient hardware...
(And yes, there's a *lot* of risk-management going on centered around "What if
we have to patch Server23 for a critical kernel security issue?". Of course,
if it was actually *feasible* to blindly upgrade-and-reboot twice a month, the
job could be done by a much less expensive patch monkey, so it's good job
security ;)