Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:31:45 -0400 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: [2.6 patch] let broken drivers depend on BROKEN{,ON_SMP} |
| |
On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 10:50:12AM -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote: > On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Tomas Szepe wrote: > > > There are going to be a zillion drivers that don't compile by the > > time 2.6.0 is released, which is precisely when lkml will see a whole > > new wave of people willing to fix things so I really don't think > > hiding the problems behind CONFIG_BROKEN or whatever is reasonable. > > I can't follow your logic. This is now supposed to be a stable kernel, but > you want to have a bunch of non-working drivers available to reduce > confidence in it? If I have device X, why do you think I would need a > driver less if it were marked BROKEN? A broken list would be a great > starting point for people who are looking for something to do in 2.6. > > If you get a bunch of compiler errors without a clear indication that the > driver is known to have problems, it is more likely to produce a "Linux is > crap" reaction. With the problems Windows is showing this week, I'd like > to show Linux as the reliable alternative, not whatever MS is saying about > hacker code this week.
The people who want Linux to be reliable won't be compiling their own kernels, typically. Because, the people that _do_ compile their own kernels have sense enough to disable broken drivers :) That's what Red Hat, SuSE, and others do today.
Jeff
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |