Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 26th Jul 2006 17:41 UTC, submitted by elsewhere
Thread beginning with comment 146867
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/15/13 23:03 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-07-26
The BIG BIG BIG trade off is that the rate in which the kernel is innovated/improved/opimized will decrease dramatically, no matter how well implementation is encapsulated from the API interface.
I would rather think that it will stimulate some additional modularity and some "inteligent design" will be involded at last.
And, there will have to be multiple implementations of common APIs, to support multiple devices, and multiple versions.
Which means versioning - feature we have a problem with. Old drivers are supported by old compatibility layer, new drivers have full benefit of the new architecture.
And the kernel will become bigger, slower, and more bloated.
Only, if we continue to have monolitic kernel. If it is modular, then if you do not have old drivers, no compatibility layer is required to be loaded.
The problem with this article is that Linux developers start believe themself, that they do not have problems with drivers, when users consider this as one of main problems of Linux. Just go to CompUSA, buy a new cool device and try to find a driver.