On Sun, 2004-11-21 at 16:34 +0000, Mike Hearn wrote: > > well in a way it is, in a way it's not. There is a difference between > > userspace software and kernel components here. A "broken" userspace app > > at worst breaks itself. A broken kernel component breaks the entire > > system, because kernel components have full permission to everything, by > > definition. > > Yes I understand that. Bugs in drivers are *always* a big deal though. > >From a desktop users POV a bug in the kernel or a bug in the X server > drivers are basically equivalent, both kill the session dead. > Userspace/kernelspace doesn't matter in that instance. it's not "the session is dead" but "the machine crashed, possibly corrupting the filesystem with it". That's not quite the same... > I think you imagine everybody will blame the kernel developers for driver > bugs. If communication is good enough there's no reason why that should be > so. bzzzzz. wrong ;) There's no way around this; esp since you can't see from a crash what caused it... this is why the kernel now prints a "tainted" thing so that the kernel developers can just ignore the bug/point the user to the bin only module vendor > > the udev thing is 1) not caused by the kernel at all and 2) progress. > > You don't suggest holding back progress do you ? > > Here is the first line of my original email: > > > Stability is about managing change, not preventing it. > > I don't know whether udev was a 2.6 thing that was just not used in FC2, > but all I know is that I upgraded my system and now stuff doesn't work. If > udev was known to be a breaking change, why was it not integrated at the > *start* of the 2.6 series so vendors could say udev isn't part of the kernel. the 2.6.0 kernel has the option to use it already. > "OK our current driver only works with 2.4 series kernels. You'll have to > wait a bit for a 2.6 compatible driver" how is that different from "Ok our current driver only works with FC2. You'll have to wait a bit for a FC3 compatible driver" that you have now ? Esp since udev is NOT a kernel thing (although the 2.6 kernel more or less requires udev) > > I didn't want to suggest there were no reasons to chose the kernel side. > > It's probably a 5% performance gain or so... > > Well, there you go. The 3D market is cut-throat, an avoidable performance > loss was probably deemed too high a cost. but it's still choice.... where you claimed there wasn't any
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
