Nvidia sucks, sucks, sucks !

[Mike McCarty]

Peter Gordon wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 09:48 +1100, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> 
>>It would be nice if everything worked out of the box, but the Linux
>>kernel folks have never felt bound to provide stable kernel interfaces
>>for drivers, leading to constant and routine need for users to source
>>newer versions of third party drivers (if they even exist) that have
>>been updated to the new interface change.
>>
>>Consider: what's changed? NVidia's driver? No. Your laptop hardware? No.
>>What's changed is the Linux kernel interface. Thanks Linus!
> 
> 
> Having a stable in-kernel API is complete nonsense. It would function

May I ask how many years experience you have with kernel development
of any operating system? I wrote a small real time OS in 1984, and
have developed or supported four others[*] during the years 1986 through
2002. I also have written device drivers for the same four, and led
a team of 15 engineers for 18 months doing device driver and hardware
interface/board support code. I have written the initial boot ROMs
for two boards, and helped develop same for five others.

Oddly, I don't think that having a stable API for device drivers
is complete nonsense.

If you would like to discuss this in a civil manner, and avoid
using inflammatory terms like "complete nonsense", I'd continue
to discuss this with you to find what technical objections you have.

> only to harm further kernel development. The easiest way to keep your
> out-of-tree driver updated to the new kernel changes is - guess what? -
> Get it *into* the upstream kernel tree!

This is not necessarily legally possible, though it is the best way.

[*] Three of them are proprietary RTOSs helping people around the world
make long distance telephone calls, another is used to run high speed
printers (200+ pages per minute channelized printers).

Mike
-- 
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!