Posts in by tag
Recent Poll's
User login
Navigation
Recent Comments
Syndicate
Driver install question
Sun, 12/14/2008 - 01:54 — Olsen
Installing nVidia drivers: Windows, double-click an *.exe and go get a coffee. Linux, read a 53 page HOWTO.
Why?
Can't some of the more disrespectful posters, calling Linux skeptics stupid and morons channel their energies in writing drivers that install easily.
If you think overdocumented
If you think overdocumented drivers are bad, wait until you get into the underdocumented ones.
Did anyone think about
Did anyone think about asking the manufacturers of a network card, graphic cards or whatsoever hardware to provide the driver for linux?
No, of course not! But why? Well, is there someone not "allowing" them to provide drivers for "Non-M$-Systems"... Hhmmm
Ummmm………...............
Ummmm………................ I think the problem with providing drivers for Linux is the number of distributions, and generations of each distribution (which do not even have backwards binary compatible with previous versions of themselves.)
And a website I seen a while ago had a list of around 500 and some odd distributions (not including generational versions of those distributions)
That isn’t including the custom recoded/compiled installations.
So the question becomes “Drivers for which Linux?”
Driver developers can not take time to try and figure out how every tom dick and harry compiled their freaking distro and with what freaking glibic, monkey, or LaTeX version they use.
They need to be able to release one binary that will interface through a common protocol with all distributions.
Create ONE freaking driver interaction ISA for Linux and apply that to all distributions. That way, one driver will be able to work on all distributions (Irrelevant of what freaking glibic, monkey, or LaTeX version they use.)
And yes, expecting source code is too much to ask for. Don’t ask a corporation that has spent billions of dollars on a product to give away their source code! Just give them a consistent interface to allow them to write a secure binary driver to allow Linux to use their product.
And when you upgrade your driver interface to some new 128 standard or what ever, leave 64/32/16 bit backwards compatibility in place, so all the drivers that have already been written will still work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ironic how the flagship of
Ironic how the flagship of Open Source and Open Standards (Linux) is being used as the kernel for about 500 different operating systems (distributions) yet, they can't come up with an "open driver standard" so that a manufacturer only has to write three drivers: Mac, Windows, and Linux.
The same can be said about application programming interfaces. Funny how the only open application programming standard that functions across all Linux distributions is a rewrite of Win32.
Actually, a close look will
Actually, a close look will show a driver for Win98, Win2000, WinXP, WinXP SP1 in some cases, etc.
So there isn't just "one" Windows driver, but different versions for different versions of windows. But yes, the point still stands. It's still far easier to write for three or four variants of Windows (I hazard the drivers are very similar) than 500 versions of Linux, each being updated frequently.
LEts see, Win 2000 is still in use. Since then, there have been two other Windows. As for Lonux, there are 10 versions of Fedora, 5 Suse, etc etc. 3 versions of the Kernel, about 80 minor versions of the kernel plus 100's of variants. oh sheesh!
Definately not easy for driver developers.