To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I don't see why you can't do that ("implement new drivers without the need to recompile the whole kernel") with the current kernel development model. Oh, well, I do see some reasons, if you're a corporation going only after money.
See, what happens is that hardware vendors would like to be able to circumvent the kernel development team. They're waking up to the smell of Linux starting to make sense as a consumer platform, but they don't like the open source and free software any more than they ever did. They'd love a method of being able to put their binary blobs in there.
Normally, you'd give the code to the Linux source base, perhaps sponsor a dev to maintain it or have your own guy do it. Maximum compatibility and quality. The benefits of open source.
But we can't have that, can we? Us corporations gotta have our corporate secrets and binary blobs. So here's the modus operandi:
1. Target a couple of "commercial" distro's.
2. Cut the Linux devs out of the loop.
3. Profit.
They can't possibly match the vanilla stuff for quality and compatibility with every new release. So in turn they'll just release for specific distro's and that's all, folks. As a bonus, we're going to see the kind of driver madness and screw-ups we see on Windows, driver and vendor lock-in, sacrificing quality for backward compatibility and all those nice things that the Windows platform has accustomed us to.
The question now is, which Linux distro's will whore out for money. SuSE is a no-brainer. I'm curious about Ubuntu.
Edited 2007-09-23 22:32







Member since:
2007-05-30
I wish I was smarter, but I just don't get it. I've never heard the term driver drop before, but I take from context that it means somehow being able to make it possible to use drivers run on kernel versions that they weren't designed for? Help me out here, please. ;-)