Re: why no gcc in 9.1 personal?
From: houghi (houghi_at_houghi.org.invalid)
Date: 05/25/04
- Next message: Roland Eder: "Re: Creating an 9.1 suse update server"
- Previous message: Keith Clark: "Re: offtopic, but please write to laptop manufacturers"
- In reply to: Moritz Franosch: "Re: why no gcc in 9.1 personal?"
- Next in thread: Oddbjørn Hansen: "Re: why no gcc in 9.1 personal?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 20:33:12 -0000
Moritz Franosch wrote:
> - They licensed the driver or part of it from someone else.
They should not. Concentrate on hardware selling. Not software
> - They fear that broken drivers could damage the hardware, which may
> increase the cost for support.
Make a driver that works.
> - They want to sell the same hardware with different capabilities,
> controlled by the driver.
Make a driver that does just that
> - They have certified hardware/driver combinations, e.g. passive ISDN
> cards may have to be certified by the telephone company and wireless
> equipment may have to be certified to fulfill the law. Hardware
> vendors don't want to be liable when a broken driver damages third
> party equipment or is used to break the law.
Make copatible drivers.
> - They fear that competitors use the information they get from an open
> source driver for competitive products.
Make closed source drivers.
> - They save the paperwork that would be necesary to explain the
> interface of the hardware to driver developers.
Make the drivers yourself.
> - They don't want to be liable for wrong descriptions of the hardware.
Make them yourself
> - When the user installs a new OS, they want to sell new hardware by
> not porting the driver to the new OS.
Huh? So when there is a new OS out, they will not let me buy their
system, because they do not provide the driver. I WANT to buy the new
hardware. I am not asking them to upgrade their old hardware. PLEASE
give me the drivers for the new hardware.
The solution above is all null and void. If they are scared for
whatever, make the driver a closed source one. There are several
hardware vendors who do that.
> The point is: A driver or at least the kernel interface of the driver
> has to be compiled on the target machine with the very same compiler
> the kernel was compiled with. Without gcc, a hardware vendor can not
> install his driver.
I have no idea if this is tru or not. I do not know if the kernel needs
to be changed or that a program would be enough, so others can comment
on that.
<snip>
I still believe that a hardwarevendor should sell hardware. To let his
hardware run, one needs drivers. Either he provides the drivers or he
gives others the possibilaty to make these drivers.
-- http://www.houghi.org | | _) \ \ \ /\ \ \ /\ \ \ / \ _ \ | | _` | \ | _ \ _|_` | \_/\_/ \_/\_/ \_/\_/_)_| _|\___/\_,_|\__, |_| _|_|_)\___/_|\__, | My experince with SUSE. ____/ ____/
- Next message: Roland Eder: "Re: Creating an 9.1 suse update server"
- Previous message: Keith Clark: "Re: offtopic, but please write to laptop manufacturers"
- In reply to: Moritz Franosch: "Re: why no gcc in 9.1 personal?"
- Next in thread: Oddbjørn Hansen: "Re: why no gcc in 9.1 personal?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
