Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 14th Mar 2011 18:59 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y And over the weekend, the saga regarding Canonical, GNOME, and KDE has continued. Lots of comments all over the web, some heated, some well-argued, some wholly indifferent. Most interestingly, Jeff Waugh and Dave Neary have elaborated on GNOME's position after the initial blog posts by Shuttleworth and Seigo, providing a more coherent look at GNOME's side of the story.
Thread beginning with comment 466147
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: F**k this shit!
by oiaohm on Tue 15th Mar 2011 05:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: F**k this shit!"
oiaohm
Member since:
2009-05-30

"[q]We the users will suffer from desktop environment quirks while the egos battle it out, watching Microsoft, Google and Apple laugh all the way to bank.


And this is different from how things are now in what way? They've already got enough reasons to laugh at the major F/OSS operating systems without even looking at the GUI side of things. Let's try Linux: kernel modules, no stable API or ABI, subsystems being redone and overlayed atop one another... should I go on?
"

That's the Kernel no stable API nonsense?
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/gregkh/misc/2.6/stabl... [/q]

This is a key block of text.
This is being written to try to explain why Linux does not have a binary kernel interface, nor does it have a stable kernel interface. Please realize that this article describes the _in kernel_ interfaces, not the kernel to userspace interfaces. The kernel to userspace interface is the one that application programs use, the syscall interface. That interface is _very_ stable over time, and will not break. I have old programs that were built on a pre 0.9something kernel that still works just fine on the latest 2.6 kernel release. This interface is the one that users and application programmers can count on being stable.

Notice this is very clear to point out kernel to userspace has been stable from 0.9 Linux something. So there is a stable ABI/API. Of course everyone raising the arguement forgets the existance of these.
http://lwn.net/Articles/296388/ CUSE
http://fuse.sourceforge.net/ fuse
and of course Buse.

There are all ways to create drivers using the stable kernel to user-space interface. Now the question becomes why do you need a Kernel ABI in the first place other than the Userspace one?

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: F**k this shit!
by allanregistos on Tue 15th Mar 2011 05:28 in reply to "RE[3]: F**k this shit!"
allanregistos Member since:
2011-02-10


There are all ways to create drivers using the stable kernel to user-space interface. Now the question becomes why do you need a Kernel ABI in the first place other than the Userspace one?


Education. But I do not think that Hardware manufacturers are ignorant of this information. I am not a developer of this level not to mention being a driver developer, but why is it that most Printer/Scanner/peripherals etc have no Linux driver by default, if they can write it easily using the userpace without touching GPL?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: F**k this shit!
by oiaohm on Tue 15th Mar 2011 10:46 in reply to "RE[4]: F**k this shit!"
oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

"
There are all ways to create drivers using the stable kernel to user-space interface. Now the question becomes why do you need a Kernel ABI in the first place other than the Userspace one?


Education. But I do not think that Hardware manufacturers are ignorant of this information. I am not a developer of this level not to mention being a driver developer, but why is it that most Printer/Scanner/peripherals etc have no Linux driver by default, if they can write it easily using the userpace without touching GPL?
"

Printer and Scanner drivers on all platforms are user space. No kernel mode part on any. So yes there is no excuse other than deciding that Linux is too small of market share to support.

Another thing a lot of people are not aware is that OS X and Linux use the same printer service struct. Yet there are drivers for OS X and no drivers for the same printer for Linux from the hardware maker. Cannon excuse is lack of means provide userspace applications. But really the two drivers would be basically the same source code with minor alterations.

Also some is MS interference. Before MS Novell deal. Novell was working on providing the interface to take MS Windows drivers for printers and use them directly under Linux so solving that problem. They stopped work on that the very day the contract with Microsoft was signed.

Also under Vista+ there is technically no reason for usb devices to have a driver in kernel space at all. Yet hardware makers are still releasing drivers using kernel space under windows for Vista and 7 for usb drivers so causing unstable states and bad outcomes. Reason its cheaper they don't have to redo there code base from XP. Yes the issue of lack of or badly written is not restricted to Linux.

There is also the nightmare under windows where 1 device can have 50 different drivers even that its the same device it all depends who brand is on the device what driver you get.

Yes Linux is the same with USB drivers as windows no need for kernel space. PCI and PCI-E don't have to be kernel space either under Linux. But windows that might be asking too much. PCI and PCI-E passed to userspace is why virtual machines under Linux can pass PCI and PCI-E cards to contained OS untouched.

In the open source world if the hardware makers will release the specs most cases they don't have to write drivers. Also releasing the specs would allow consumers to see that X product here for 200 dollars is the same product over here for 20 dollars just with a different company brand on it. Yes Consumers are being ripped off all the way to the bank and getting inferior quality drivers at the same time. Yes this is a major issue why some hardware makers don't want to work with open source. It unmasks the truth.

As soon as you start talking kernel space and drivers. You are talking a pandoras box where a lot of parties don't want you to start looking. Because a lot of the unstable you suffer from is magically explained. And the fact you are being ripped of by particular hardware makers becomes clear as day.

It very simple to try to just blame Linux for its poor driver support. The big thing to be aware is that its not Linux alone. Its hardware makers who don't want the truth out there of there hardware.

Like every HP scanner and printer on the shelf today has perfectly support under Linux today as open source. Every brother printer on the shelf you could buy today has perfect support for linux as a binary driver. Ok bit of a tricky driver to install but its provided.(Yes they need to work on there install method language so a normal human could understand it).

These are not reversed support. Final argument is lack of market share. But with the slap shot support I see for Vista and 7. I Have to say 90 percent of the reason is profit making nothing more at the buyers expense.

Yes that Linux can do it does not matter they just will not spend the money or give the open source world the specs so they can do it themselves.

Nt supporters like nt_facejerk don't really want people to be aware of the truth. Since people aware of the truth might start asking for full interface specs to products and other nasty things.

Interesting thing here as well. I have found hardware makers who provide open source drivers more often maintain better quality drivers for Windows. Yes that a bit of hardware runs under Linux should be seen as a good sign that you will have less trouble under windows with that device compared to the device sitting next to it that does not support Linux.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: F**k this shit!
by jabjoe on Tue 15th Mar 2011 11:21 in reply to "RE[3]: F**k this shit!"
jabjoe Member since:
2009-05-06

BUSE? Block device in User SpacE? Cool, didn't know that one. :-)

Reply Parent Score: 3