On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 14:13:35 -0800 (PST) Bill Unruh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Lee Revell wrote: > > > On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 09:37 -0800, Bill Unruh wrote: > >> 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. > > > > Why in the hell are all these end users having to compile the kernel to > > get their sound working? 99.99% of users should never have to compile > > anything. Sounds like the distros are doing a piss poor job, or else > > people insist on buying bleeding edge hardware that hasn't been on the > > market long enough for us to write a working driver. > > AAgrhaheh. The claim from you was that it is easy for a user to update the > drivers for a new kernel, or install new drivers which had been developed > to a new kernel. Just three lines-- untar, configure and make. I point out > that it is NOT that easy. It is that easy only if the user's system has > been set up as a development environment. The whole premise was "the user > has a new kernel or the user has a new driver for his new soundcard. Why > cannot the user not simply find a precompiled version for all 2.6.x kernels > and install it, instead of having to have a version for every single > possible version of the kernel, or instead of having to compile it > himself." This discussion also began from the difficulties that sound card > manufacturers have in supporting Linux. They cannot simply include a binary > driver module which the user can install on his system. This is true whether > they > include source code or not. > > This is an impediment to manufacturer's supporting Linux. If the > manufacturer has to include 700 versions of his drivers and tell the user > exactly how to determine the version of the user's kernel and figure out > which of the 700 versions to install, or tell the user how to set up a > developement environment on his system, download the kernel source for his > particular kernel and then compile and install it ( which as you said is > the easy part), it is going to impede the best will in the world of the > manufacturer to support Linux. > > Bad support such as -- Here is the source code. Go off and figure out how to > install this on your kernel.-- is far worse than no support at all as far > as most manufacturers are concerned. > > Ie, this is a problem not just for manufacturers who do not want to include > driver source code for whatever reason. It is one for manufacturers who > behave like good Linux citizens as well. > > And "Do not buy that new sound card-- wait a year or two or three until the > distribution you like gets around to including that card in their > distribution" does not seem like an adequate response. > > > Now, if there is a technical reason why it is very difficult to set up the > module system so as to enable one binary to run on all say 2.6.x kernels, > that is one thing. If it is bloody mindedness on the developer's part ( > that would make it too easy for manufacturers to develop binary only > drivers) it is another issue. I would like to know which it is. > > Regarding "If it is bloody mindedness on the developer's part" - I believe it is EXACTLY what it is. I'm saying this because I read the kernel developers' document justifying absence of stable ABI and IMO the arguments used by kernel developers were wrong. I even proposed a binary interface for ALSA. It was a very a rough draft, more of a concept, but, if I remember correctly, nobody said it was impossible to implement. Again, if I remember correctly, Peter Zubaj said that ALSA developers care more about themselves and the development process than about end users. I do not remember the exact words, but I believe that was the sense. I agree with "This is an impediment to manufacturer's supporting Linux". I think that Linux development community should understand it is not in the position to demand anything from manufacturers. Linux's best chance to be adopted is to work out a stable solution acceptable to manufacturers, and only then, as someone has already said, after gaining 5-10% market share, it will be reasonable to try to convince the manufacturers to release the specs in order to facilitate OSS drivers development. ------------------------------------------------------- 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
