On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 09:37:10 -0800 (PST) Bill Unruh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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. > > Thanks for having the courage not to shut up. IMHO you are absolutely right about the philosophical position - it is just it, the lack of desire to introduce stability through first defining interfaces and then sticking to them. And, risking to attract even more awe - the side effect of the "bazaar" part of development model. Regarding dependencies - you are again right. Even simpler than kernel things require a lot of dependencies to be resolved - I am doing some development, so I know it. ------------------------------------------------------- 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
