Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264842AbTIDU1L (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Sep 2003 16:27:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264839AbTIDU1J (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Sep 2003 16:27:09 -0400 Received: from adsl-63-194-239-202.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net ([63.194.239.202]:37897 "EHLO mmp-linux.matchmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264842AbTIDU1G (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Sep 2003 16:27:06 -0400 Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 13:27:07 -0700 From: Mike Fedyk To: James Clark Cc: Albert Cahalan , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Driver Model 2 Proposal - Linux Kernel Performance v Usability Message-ID: <20030904202707.GF13676@matchmail.com> Mail-Followup-To: James Clark , Albert Cahalan , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <1062637356.846.3471.camel@cube> <200309042114.45234.jimwclark@ntlworld.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200309042114.45234.jimwclark@ntlworld.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1928 Lines: 33 On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 09:14:45PM +0100, James Clark wrote: > Thank you for this (and the few other) sensible appraisal of my 'proposal'. > > I'm very surprised by the number of posts that have ranted about Open/Close > source, GPL/taint issues etc. This is not about source code it is about > making Linux usable by the masses. It may be technically superior to follow > the current model, but if the barrier to entry is very high (and it is!) then > the project will continue to be a niche project. A binary model doesn't alter > the community or the benefits of public source code. I agree that it is an > extra interface and will carry a performance hit - I think this is worth it. The thing is, most Linux developers (and I'm sure it's above 51% or maybe they're just louder?) want drivers to be GPL compatible open source. Having a static binary driver interface just doesn't mix very well for that. And as things happen (and how it should be), in a well kept stable series, the binary interfaces won't change that much. But it will change for different options, like SMP, preempt, numa, etc. > Windows has many faults but drivers are often compatible across major > releases and VERY compatible across minor releases. It is no accident that it > has 90% of the desktop market. If we are going to improve this situation this > issue MUST be confronted. Have you ever seen the source code available for a windows driver? Windows doesn't let you customize the kernel. You just get what they give you. With the customization possible in Linux you get many advantages, and the disadvantage that the binary interface can change depending on the compile options. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/