Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 22:15:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 22:15:33 -0400 Received: from virtucon.warpcore.org ([216.81.249.22]:23427 "EHLO virtucon") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 22:15:20 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 21:16:22 -0500 From: drevil@warpcore.org To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.4.13-pre6 breaks Nvidia's kernel module Message-ID: <20011022211622.B20411@virtucon.warpcore.org> Mail-Followup-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20011022172742.B445@virtucon.warpcore.org> <20011022203159.A20411@virtucon.warpcore.org> <20011022214324.A18888@alcove.wittsend.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20011022214324.A18888@alcove.wittsend.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 09:43:24PM -0400, Michael H. Warfield wrote: > Really? Sure as hell hasn't been my experience. Oh! That only > works with Windows 95! Ok, now you can get the driver to support Windows > 98 but it won't support Windows NT (got one RIGHT NOW like that). Oops, > you upgraded to Windows 2000, can't support that with that driver, we > don't have a driver for that yet. Windows XP, sorry, we don't have the > Windows XP certified driver, yet, try back in a few months. > Think that's a joke? I think it's pathetic and it is EXACTLY > what I have experienced with multimedia cards, scanners, and printers. > Why would Windows XP break all the non-MS Windows 2000 drivers > (don't you dare tell me it didn't, I work at a place that got slammed by > their shit). Why would things that work on Windows 98 (Delorme Eartha > DVD) not work on Windows NT or Windows 2000. The Windows mess is a swamp > out there of what drivers work with what version (some don't even work > between the original editions and updated editions - Windows 95 had > three editions that I have in hand). Hmm...where did I say once that the user upgraded their version of windows? Note, I said windows 'update', not windows 'upgrade'. Theoretically, based off the whole "odd", "even", "stable", "unstable" numbering system that was given, Kernel 2.4.x should be one 'version', and should not randomly break programs/drivers during it's 'completely bugfix' development? I wonder how much more driver support we might see under Linux if it didn't break compatability with existing drivers so much... It could be said that at least windows has a somewhat "stable" (in the sense that it doesn't change very often) driver API, something that Linux apparently lacks currently. Stability comes from a lack of feature creep, and that's something that Linux doesn't have currently. It seems as if a user is forced to upgrade to a newer minor 'kernel revision' often to gain hardware support even though other things may break because interfaces may have changed. Compare this to windows, where the "Windows 98" driver API changed very little (AFAIK) and it was pretty much guranteed that no matter how many times a user "updated" his copy of Windows 98 (note that I did not say NT) with service packs and or other fixes to his system his drivers would still work, and where a user can often obtain updated device support simply by upgrading his drivers instead of upgrading his core operating system. Contrast this with Linux where the 'helter skelter, we can break stuff because we know better' attitude, and you begin to see why so many companies might not be intereseted in supporting Linux at all. It seems as if the very model of the kernel precludes a vendor's ability to produce a driver and have it work with almost the entire series of a particular kernel 'release', such as 2.4, contrast this with windows where often a specific driver may work for the entire period of that particular release... I am advocating Windows? Hardly. What I am advocating is a little bit more sanity. The OS should not break compatability with existing drivers so often for a 'stable' release. I know that i'm not the only one here that is quite tired of upgrading to newer versions of the kernel to fix some bugs, only to receive a plethora of mind boggling hardware crashing others and to find that suddenly their drivers don't work correctly any more. We've seen arguments over the 'stable' release series regarding the VM code, I won't even go there, but I think it proves that I'm not the only one that finds "2.4.x's" tendency to break things and pay for them later more than annoying... Now of course, there is nothing here to say that the kernel has in any way broken support with the NVidia driver, obviously this discussion is far beyond that point, and it is rather irrelevant. I believe my above discussion is the real root of the matter, and the NVidia driver is only an example of the real issue. It's very possible that something else broke the driver for this user and without the proper test data reported by the user (which was admittedly rather sparse to begin with) very little debugging can be done and very little help can be given... This of course comes from my somewhat limited experience in the software development business market, and as always YMMV... - 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/