From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262136AbTIDWNi (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Sep 2003 18:13:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265619AbTIDWLZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Sep 2003 18:11:25 -0400 Received: from 168.imtp.Ilyichevsk.Odessa.UA ([195.66.192.168]:62736 "HELO 127.0.0.1") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S265601AbTIDWK4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Sep 2003 18:10:56 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: insecure Reply-To: insecure@mail.od.ua To: jimwclark@ntlworld.com, Mike Fedyk Subject: Re: Driver Model 2 Proposal - Linux Kernel Performance v Usability Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 01:10:50 +0300 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.4] Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <1062637356.846.3471.camel@cube> <20030904202707.GF13676@matchmail.com> <200309042216.03958.jimwclark@ntlworld.com> In-Reply-To: <200309042216.03958.jimwclark@ntlworld.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: <200309050110.50236.insecure@mail.od.ua> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Friday 05 September 2003 00:16, James Clark wrote: > I agree that at first sight the two concepts (Binary 'plugins' and GPL) > don't mix well but this is actually FUD which obscures the issue of making > the kernel much easier to deal with for the masses. Like it or not, 99+% of > 'potential users' don't want/need to recompile their whole kernel, with the > risks that it has, to add one minor feature. Those 99+% are going to use a distro. A popular Linux distro is a rough equivalent of a Windows install disk in terms of ease of use, feature set and intended audience. Distro can handle this problem (of driver ABI or absence thereof) in any way it wants. I can imagine it can even go to the great pains and introduce binary driver ABI. But unlikely. OTOH I believe core kernel folks will not accept your proposal. Stay a bit longer on lkml and you will understand why. -- vda