Andy Green wrote: >> There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of different WiFi devices. >> It seems to me that the onus is on the developer >> to ensure as far as possible that changes he/she makes do not impinge >> on devices working with the previous version. > > Well that's not going to happen, because the only way someone writing > code can meet that standard is to sit on his hands entirely. Please read what I said, namely "as far as possible". First of all, drivers for new devices can be offered as new modules, in which case they won't impinge on anyone not opting to use them. Secondly, I would imagine that judicious use if #ifdef's would ensure that new code would not impinge on working devices. > It also presupposes that the existing version of the code is in a golden > state that any deviation from will make matters worse. If the existing > code is shaky and shows no signs of maturing by small tinkering, then it > has to be ripped out by the roots and redone. That totally violates > your concept above, yet is the right thing to do. In the very rare cases where this is done, the old module is normally left as an option, and the replacement is described as EXPERIMENTAL, at least for a while. > Several wireless drivers are in Fedora kernels that are not in vanilla. > What do you prefer, no support for those devices at all or the best > support that is currently available, so people can feed back issues and > make the support better? I'm all in favour of new drivers (as modules) being as widely available as possible. That should not impinge on anyone who does not opt to use them. -- Timothy Murphy e-mail (<80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366 s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
