Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 11th May 2007 18:17 UTC, submitted by diegocg
Permalink for comment 239539
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-08
Of course Solaris and FreeBSD have their own DRI implementations. I won't argue that ;-) But Linux DRI is receiving contributions from Intel and others that aren't going into the other kernels.
Yes, these are two very different development models, and I would hesitate to argue that one is clearly better than the other. They both have their advantages and disadvantages, and although Linux has had some success, it's too early to pass judgment on whether their development model is appropriate for the mature and widely-deployed OS that it aspires to become.
The pattern for Linux driver frameworks starts with organic development followed by a unification effort or two. SCSI, Ethernet, and USB reached their current state of maturity through this process, and 802.11 is undergoing its reconstructive surgery right now. The end results are generally very good, and that might have something to do with the number of ideas that get hurled at the wall, so to speak.
If Solaris is to compete with Linux head-to-head, then a stable driver interface is going to be a strong selling point. By that point, though, it may be that most of the Linux driver interfaces will have already reached a state of de facto stability. We'll see ;-)