Hello, On Sunday 29 August 2004 16:00, Alan Cox wrote: > On Gwe, 2004-08-27 at 20:29, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > So stop whining about it. The driver got removed because the author > > asked for it. > > Please put it back, minus the hooks so the rest of the world can use it.
No, don't! There is one very practial reason for that: the utter confusion it will cause when suddenly PWCX cannot be loaded anymore, because users will assume that since PWC is in the kernel, PWCX will work too. I really would not like to be at the receiving end of the support mailbox when 2.6.9 comes out with such a crippled version of PWC. That's one of the reasons I requested PWC to be removed. For me, it's also a matter of quality: what good is a half-baked driver in the kernel when you need to patch it first to get it working fully again? I don't want my name attached to that. > If not please remove every line of code I've even written because I > don't like the new attitude .. so ner.. > > Point made ? We can't go around throwing out drivers because the author > had a tantrum. I'm not having a tantrum. If it is, it has been one in the making for 3 years. > Its also trivial to move the decompressor to user space > where it should be anyway. *sigh* As I have been saying a 100 times before, it is illogical, cumbersome for both users and developers, and will probably take a very long time to adopt (notwithstanding V4L2 [*]). I mean, I still remember when the YUV->RGB conversion code was snipped from PWC when I supplied it for inclusing in the kernel, back in 2001. It took a long, long time for webcam tools to adjust their code to check for the YUV palette and do the conversion themselves, and _to_this_very_day_ I'm getting mails about programs who still don't get it right. *IF* there was a commonly accepted video "middle-layer", this would not pose much of a problem. But there is no such thing yet. (maybe that's something for a 2.7 kernel...) > Similarly the driver is useful without the binary stuff. True. But judging from the mails I have received the last couple of days, people don't really care about the binary stuff, as long as it works. They want to use the cam to its full potential, so PWCX is more or less a necessity. However, there's has now been added an extra hurdle in getting it work, for reasons I find questionable, and really, 3 years too late. Seriously, this probably would not have happened if, back in 2001, the driver was rejected on the basis of this hook (you were there, Alan...) I never made a secret of it, it has been in the driver from day 1 and its purpose was clearly spelled out. If it had been rejected, I would probably have just switched to '3rd party module' mode and maintained it outside the kernel indefinetely. I would not have liked it, but it would have been acceptable. Another acceptable solution would have been, if after the 'discovery' of the hook, Greg or anybody else had said: "Look, we really don't want this kind of thing in the kernel. However, since we're a bit late to react, we'll leave it in the 2.4 and 2.6 series, but versions beyond that (2.7-devel, etc) will not have PWC included in this form. In the mean time, we're asking you to think of a solution". Chances are the situation would have been fully resolved before that (and I mean fully *hint*). > Or do we need a -ac tree again where this time -ac is "added camera" ;) *lol* The code is still floating around on the Net, so nobody's stopping you... - Nemosoft [*] Some advice: if you really want to speed up V4L2 adoption by video tools, start disabling V4L1 in the kernel... ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools! Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5047&alloc_id=10808&op=click _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
