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 466288
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: F**k this shit!
by oiaohm on Tue 15th Mar 2011 22:10 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: F**k this shit!"
Member since:

Something I have not mentioned so far. Is that the userspace-kernel bridge in Linux can be turned into a kernel ABI with a third party patch. Keeping many advantages

Basically shutup asking for a kernel ABI. Linux developers are providing driver makers with a Highly stable ABI that can be made operate in kernel mode if required. There are not enough drivers to justify Kernel Mode Linux to be integrated mainline.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: F**k this shit!
by oiaohm on Tue 15th Mar 2011 23:14 in reply to "RE[5]: F**k this shit!"
oiaohm Member since:

I really should have though all this out.

Other thing about Linux userspace drivers are they are really forever drivers in many ways.

Qemu can wrap a userspace driver to run on basically any cpu type. So maker only gives my 32 bit x86 and I have an arm processor no problems. Yes inside qemu its runs a bit slower but at least the driver will work.

chroots/openvz zones can be created to provide an old system appearance to a userspace driver.

And of course Linux kernel userspace syscall off load. So kernel can drop syscalls and userspace never needs to know since they are now being provided from userspace.

Not something hardware makers particularly like the idea. Once Linux has a open source or userspace driver it has the possibility of having that driver for every CPU and ARCH type linux supports.

Yes Linux design is going after the same thing MS .Net OS dreams have been going after.

Of course being userspace code has not excluded it from being loaded kernel space. And userspace kernel is kernel netural. So what is the problem. Linux had a problem that every other OS has suffered from through time and they design a solution. Most likely the only solution that can proper work in all cases unless you go to something like a java or .net OS core.

Of course there is a disadvantage of userspace drivers. No nasty stunts can be done to stop reverse engineering.

Reply Parent Score: 2