On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:39:06 +0000
James Courtier-Dutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What we have with Linux is better than what you want.
You install the Linux kernel, and you have support for all sound cards
already there. No need to go searching the net for some driver like one
has to do in Windows.
If it is not already in the Linux kernel, your sound card is unlikely to
work in Linux at all.
If you want support or a bug fix for some particular sound card, you
then have to either wait for your distro to support it. (similar to
waiting for the manufacture's web site to be updated with a new driver),
or alternatively, compile the kernel and alsa from sources, and get the
very latest bug fixes and features.
If you think about it, the Linux way is actually a lot better than the
method you are describing.
It might be, but it in general is not. It is not possible for the average
user to just recompile. He almost certainly did not install the development
stuff when he installed Linux. He probably did not install the kernel
source when he installed linux. So, before he can do "make" he has to
install a HUGE list of development programs and libraries and he has to
find the kernel source and config files for his particular version of
Linux. In the process he has to resolve a bunch of dependencies, by which
time he is screaming. Then he can finally do the make, and the make
install.
Even on my system, I was going to install the 1.0.10 alsa, and ran make,
only to notice that the only source I had installed was the 2.6.8.1 when I
had months ago replaced the running kernel with 2.6.11, without the source.
Also, sometimes I switch between kernels. And suddenly I have to recompile
for both kernels. This is both a pain and is something that would drive the
naive user around the bend. These things are easy for those of us who have
done it a lot, and have gotten over the fear that anything we do could
destroy the system (in part because we have the confidence that if it were
destroyed, we could fix it).
So, What is the problem with making the module--kernel interface so that a
driver compiled for 2.6.x would run without recompilation on 2.6.y? Is it a
philosophical position, that the linux developers want to ensure that this
does not get done, as the quote seems to indicate? Or is there some deep
technical reason why this is difficult/impossible to do? This is not an
issue of closed source/open source. I am asking a technical question about
the design of the module-kernel interface.
Basically, end user should not be forced to compile a driver.
Any honest developer should release his/her code only after sanity checks,
the first of them being compileability. So, after that first sanity check the
compiled driver already exists.
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Alsa-user mailing list
Alsa-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-user
