Linked by Adam S on Tue 14th Oct 2008 12:30 UTC
Windows According to the official Windows Vista Blog, Microsoft has decided that, in order to keep things simple, the OS code-named "Windows 7" will officially be called "Windows 7." Sayeth the poster: "since we began development of the next version of the Windows client operating system we have been referring to it by a codename, "Windows 7." But now is a good time to announce that we've decided to officially call the next version of Windows, "Windows 7."" Of course, this introduces a major issue - if the version number of Windows 7 is, in fact, 6.1 or 6.2, as many expect, how can you call it Windows 7? And if the kernel version is updated to version 7, how many apps and drivers might fail due to poor version checking? I'm sure the upcoming PDC and WinHEC events will shed some light on this.
Thread beginning with comment 333686
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Drivers
by sbergman27 on Tue 14th Oct 2008 19:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Drivers"
sbergman27
Member since:
2005-07-24

Ok, in 5 years, around 2013 I'll call your bet.
Upps, you lose!

Not unless things change very radically in that time.

Linux does a truly horrible job of dealing with drivers for new hardware. And I'm not talking about drivers for new hardware not existing, or vendors not providing the specs, or anything like that. That is a separate discussion.

I'm talking about the fact that the prescribed course for any user with a piece of new hardware is to upgrade to the latest version of their distro. And if the latest stable version does not support the hardware, then using the latest beta, or even alpha version of the distro may be required. I had to move to an early alpha version of my distro of choice just to get SATA working on my Intel G43 chipset motherboard. That is a totally brain-dead driver management policy. The truly horrifying thing is that some within the community apparently think that policy is fine and dandy.

Edited 2008-10-14 19:43 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Drivers
by leech on Tue 14th Oct 2008 20:10 in reply to "RE[2]: Drivers"
leech Member since:
2006-01-10

You don't have to do that. You can backport drivers, in case you didn't know. Not to mention that all you need are the kernel headers.

I installed the newest e1000e driver off of the sourceforge page when the whole fiasco of that happened with the .26 / .27 kernels and it worked flawlessly.

So this whole "Having to upgrade the whole distribution" is plain poo.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Drivers
by sbergman27 on Tue 14th Oct 2008 20:14 in reply to "RE[3]: Drivers"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

You don't have to do that. You can backport drivers, in case you didn't know. Not to mention that all you need are the kernel headers.

Explain that to mom. World Domination will remain forever out of reach if your attitude prevails.

Edited 2008-10-14 20:16 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Drivers
by lemur2 on Wed 15th Oct 2008 01:58 in reply to "RE[2]: Drivers"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Ok, in 5 years, around 2013 I'll call your bet. Upps, you lose!
Not unless things change very radically in that time. Linux does a truly horrible job of dealing with drivers for new hardware. And I'm not talking about drivers for new hardware not existing, or vendors not providing the specs, or anything like that. That is a separate discussion. I'm talking about the fact that the prescribed course for any user with a piece of new hardware is to upgrade to the latest version of their distro. And if the latest stable version does not support the hardware, then using the latest beta, or even alpha version of the distro may be required. I had to move to an early alpha version of my distro of choice just to get SATA working on my Intel G43 chipset motherboard. That is a totally brain-dead driver management policy. The truly horrifying thing is that some within the community apparently think that policy is fine and dandy. "

Drivers for new hardware are perfectly fine to presume a newer version of the kernel. especially for motherboards. Think about it for just one second, and pehaps you can see why.

BTW ... being reluctant to upgrade your OS version is Windows-think. With Windows, it will cost you $$$. With Windows, you are liable to run into issues with incompatibilities with versions (think ... get Windows 98 to get support for USB ... think ... directx 10 comes with Vista only ... starting to get the picture? Think ... forced upgrades.).

With Linux ... why not be up-to-date?

Edited 2008-10-15 02:01 UTC

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[4]: Drivers
by bornagainenguin on Wed 15th Oct 2008 03:29 in reply to "RE[3]: Drivers"
bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

lemur2 asked...

Being reluctant to upgrade your OS version is Windows-think. With Windows, it will cost you $$$. With Windows, you are liable to run into issues with incompatibilities with versions (think ... get Windows 98 to get support for USB ... think ... directx 10 comes with Vista only ... starting to get the picture? Think ... forced upgrades.).

With Linux ... why not be up-to-date?


Because sometimes stability matters?

Please note, the OP in the conversation chain is talking about having to install bleeding edge beta or even alpha quality software simply in order to have full hardware support for his hardware.

Of course, using your examples above with Win9x and Vista, the advantage of Linux is you can compile a kernel to get your hardware to work. Try doing that with a proprietary OS...

--bornagainpenguin

Edited 2008-10-15 03:31 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2