Drivers for Linux: Great article

Have you ever wondered why it is easy to install 3rd-party drivers from a CD in Windows or Mac OS while the same is hard on Linux and almost always involves compiling kernel modules that break when you upgrade the kernel?

Well, today I found an article that explains this and offers potential solutions:

http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/...iver_ease.html

I could not agree more. And here comes an idea:
Why can't we have a "binarydriverloader" kernel module with a standardized API that loads binary kernel modules written for it (similar to what we do with windows binary drivers)?

I can not agree. (as usual :) )
Most of my devices work, and have in-tree-source-drivers.
The winmodem has no working (source-) driver.

And some first-party Win-drivers don't work too.

Distros should install the kernel-source allways, and show the user how to patch his kernel.
Voila.

Here's what you said, UU:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by user unknown

Distros should install the kernel-source allways, and show the user how to patch his kernel.

---

Here's what Windows users trying Linux will take from that:

Quote:

---

Blah, blah, blah-blah, blah-blah-blah, blah-blah.

---

Meanwhile, their machines will be broken in Linux, but work in Windows. They will get frustrated, and they will bail. That's the point. Using Windows is easy. Using Linux is hard. I can use my wlan card in my laptop with Windows, because the drivers are autodected and loaded when plug-n-play detects my card. I cannot use wlan with Linux, because, even though the driver is on the disk, right there in its hip pocket, Linux can't seem to find it with both hands on its butt. Accordingly, I can't get the wlan to work. Guess which OS I'm going to rely upon when I'm on the road using a hotspot.

Who benefits from making Linux hard to use? [Hint] He's one of the world's richest men.[/hint]

jd

Ask most windows what a kernel even is and they'll likely reply "popcorn".

Of course you cannot simply change kernels in windows, you're stuck with whatever M$ gives you (what else is new on that front?) :roll:. I like alot of the ideas mentioned in the linked article but does it address the fact that many drivers for linux simply do not exist?

It's true, most users don't care to know anything more than how to power on the pc and use it. While I think that the new generation of pc users will have a much easier time of learning about thing such as kernels the existing pc users do not nor do they have the time required to learn about them.

Of course building every driver know to man into the kernel is a loser. I at least would never even consider using a kernel that was so large. It takes me all of 15 minutes to build a new kernel.

Frankly I think it's silly to have an icon appear on my desktop when I plug in a USB device. I can mount and unmount it much faster then clicking that stupid system tray icon that tells me "it's ok to unplug your device now" Bah! Like I need that using up my resources too!

Linux does however need a better way to build and load drivers. As long as they do not expect me to reboot my box every time I install something (like another well know OS ;) ) or use non-OSS then I'm all for it. I wish this projectthe best of luck.

Well, after thinking more about the problem, one thing became apparent to me: If it was easy to write binary drivers that are compatible to more than just one kernel version, then hardware makers would probably starting to release Linux drivers in very large and uncontrolled quantities, which would

a) decrease quality
b) make it impossible for Knoppix to include them (nearly) all

So what initially seems like a problem (the impossibility of binary-compatible drivers) is perhaps actually an advantage of Linux?

But still, things like Nvidia need a solution.

Quote:

---

Who benefits from making Linux hard to use? [Hint] He's one of the world's richest men.[/hint]

---

Are you interested in this question?

It's a boring question to me.

But I'm interested in open source.
And what if I plug-in my usb-stick with no desktop at all?
With a desktop, which doesn't have icons?
When booting into runlevel 1,2,3?

With a multi-card-reader, I would have 5 icons poping up!

I like the idea of basic functions and having control over my system.
And I don't like the idea of making linux a low-cost windows.

I know a lot of people having these wonderful easy to manage, iconheavy OS.
They cannot install the OS, they have viruses and worms, it's often broken and needs a complete reinstall, and is shutting down for suspicious reasons.
Then I arrive with my knoppix-cd, and make it work again - remove viruses, fdisk, hardwarechecks and so on.

Last time the wonderful icon-OS didn't find the network stuff - I found it in a xy20.cab-file, but I couldn't tell the system, where the programs are, because there where buttons and icons but no button to tell where the cab-files are, and no commandline of course.

And I fear the day, linux will look alike.

Fight the icons!
Kill the buttons!
Run the commandline! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mzilikazi

Ask most windows what a kernel even is and they'll likely reply "popcorn".

---

"Son, I don't know any Colonel Lennox. Is he in the Army?" :D

jd

Hmm I wonder why people want this out of linux...
Why not just use *BSD ??

Compiling a kernel doesnt need to be hard, gentoo have made it incredibly simple but some people object to even typing make!!

The wifi problem is a special problem for opensource and is due to FCC regulations .. so dont blame linux blame your government regulators.
And even so don't expect WEP since this is encryption and hence must also be banned.

Quote:

---

Frankly I think it's silly to have an icon appear on my desktop when I plug in a USB device. I can mount and unmount it much faster then clicking that stupid system tray icon that tells me "it's ok to unplug your device now" Bah! Like I need that using up my resources too!

---

Exactly, not to mention starting to play DVD's or transferring from my Camera automatically when I really want to upload a photo???

[/quote]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by user unknown

Fight the icons!
Kill the buttons!
Run the commandline! :)

---

Well, have you ever used Mac OS X? You should...
And having drivers work without compiling anything shouldn't be a privilege of paying users.

"make" is for the developes, not for the users!
Users want usability, not cryptic codes!
Commandline is ok, but only in the backend! :)

Well said, indeed! :!:

I love having the ability and the freedom to compile, edit, rewrite, modify, remaster, etc. But to require that of users simply to run apps and devices is annoying at the very least, and very frustrating. I don't think anyone suggested that power users couldn't modify at will - only that new users wouldn't have to.

If this is to be a viable desktop replacement OS for a home or office use, then nobody should ever be required to know how to compile anything.

jd

kjnowing how to compile is as simple as pressing a button if you like but is the problem the fact its compiling or the fasct the user has to drop to a CLI?

I have used MacOS-X and it does this because like *bsd obviously its a microkernel. Linux is not a microkernel and the development is not controlled enough to do this. Mac do it very well because they control the HW...*bsd do it through tighter development control.

Yet *bsd has far less users than *linux and is far behind it in opther areas of usability because of this. (Its also ahead in other areas)

The point is it is the kernel dev model that is linux....
*bsd is simple to install... you pay an expert... after that you only need to add a few drivers now and then...

this to me is like complaining that knoopix does hardware detection every boot... of course its a live CD and that is the nature of knoppix.

Linux is really all about the kernel....
I know that sounds corny but its really true!

Its often said that *bsd is a programmers/developers OS, designed as a programmer would wheras linux is a hackers OS...
Its pretty true and the hackers roots of linux still show .. but at the same time are what give linux its dynamics!

Having a look into /usr/src/linux/arch, I find 21 platforms running linux.

Quote:

---

alpha arm26 h8300 ia64 m68knommu parisc ppc64 sh sparc um x86_64
arm cris i386 m68k mips ppc s390 sh64 sparc64 v850

---

Today, you need one source for all platforms.

You might distribute 21 binaries, which increases the size of the distribution enormously.
But why not just discriminate 20 platforms, and ship the i386-drivers only?
It's the most used one, and other users may still get the sources somewhere!

OK, nobody may set a --debug-enabled=TRUE-flag on compiling, or optimize for his i686, or ...
All these people can get the sources - if there are any.

If we establish a culture of binaries, and it's doing well, vendors might keep the sources closed.
Get Distri-xy-9.1! There you find a working driver! might and will be the answer of a hardware-manufactor.
While you need Distri-yz-8.7 for some other hardware.

To avoid dependencies with a specific libc-x.y - version, every module could be linked static.
Buy some bigger harddrive and more RAM!
Problem solved!

In the end, we will find two different linux-flavors: The experts using source, and the newbies using binaries.
But there will be no bridge to help the newbies. The advices from experts will not work for the newbies.

And of course you need to buy a new distribution for every new hardware, and reinstall the whole system for every major upgrade.
Welcome to the world of windows!

This is interesting.

http://news.com.com/Linux+standard+g...l?tag=nefd.top

Drivers, hell! Looks like there's a movement to standardize Linux!

jd

I don't see binaries covered by the article, and even drivers aren't mentioned.

don't visit my homepage:http://home/arcor.de/hirnstrom/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j.drake

This is interesting.

http://news.com.com/Linux+standard+g...l?tag=nefd.top

Drivers, hell! Looks like there's a movement to standardize Linux!

jd

---

Yeah! Standards are great; there are so many to choose from!

Seriously, I think a movement to standardize Linux is probably a good thing, but I think it ought to come from ISO or IEEE, or even NIST, rather than an industry group. I don't have any problem with companies making money off Linux or with them contributing to the Linux community, but they are in business to make money, so they may want to take Linux in a direction the rest of us don't like. How to make sure that the camel stays outside the tent?

Sometimes one has to make sacrifices for the greater good. Linus could do this himself if he chose to, or at least give his official blessing. Of course, he could also stick to his principles and refuse. The cost of refusal is further fragmentation, which hurts linux and helps Microsoft. But, arguably, standardization could stifle innovation and alienate some of the most enthusiastic supporters.

Right now, we have one fragmented standard. If something isn't done, we will have two standards - one for the commercial interests and one fragmented standard for the hobbyist interests. Not necessarily a bad thing - Red Hat effectively did that when they spun off Fedora. Doubtless, most hobbyist distros would incorporate the commercial standards anyway, and deviate from them as necessary to provide specific enhancements or needs. Maybe it's a good thing, and the distros outside the commercial camp will be like a big R&D department providing much of the innovation.

jd

We already have sacrifices for the greater good but from what you say about linus I feel you prefer the BSD development model.

This is very structured and centrally controlled and its also already a microkernel.

You make it sound simple to rewrite linux as a microkernel but I get the feeling you have never written a driver or modified the kernel source yourself (just like the author of the article).

I have tried or at least contributed ...

What you seem to be forgetting is you seem to want the same inary drivers which run on everything from sparc to G5 ...not to mentionb handheld devices etc.

WinCe is a completely seperate OS to 98 or 2000 or XP...
In linux it doesnt matter if its a palm/G5 or SGI supercomputer ...
if you compile from source it works... (+/- a bit of fiddling)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gowator

I get the feeling you have never written a driver or modified the kernel source yourself (just like the author of the article).

---

You are right. I'm just a Windows user who has been using linux for a little over a year, but I don't think that exactly disqualifies me from offering an observation on the direction that linux needs to take in order to be a viable desktop replacement for Windows, at both the home and enterprise level.

With all due respect, it appears to me that the linux community has been altogether too dismissive of the ideas and needs of the millions of others like me who have looked at the viability of linux as a desktop alternative to Windows, and concluded that it isn't ready yet. The attitude of "you have'nt ever coded linux before, therefore your input is irrelevant and your opinions about the direction linux should take don't matter" is positively dripping form many of the comments in this thread, and altogether too pervasive in the linux community. Wise up. The future direction of linux is not in the hands of the linux elitists.

jd

Just to add my two_whatever_currency_you_want.
j. darke & probono, you are right on.

Ease of use should not be a privilege of paying users.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gowator

The wifi problem is a special problem for opensource and is due to FCC regulations .. so dont blame linux blame your government regulators.

---

Most people choosing an OS don't care who's to blame - they only care what works. Blaming doesn't get anyone anywhere.

Besides, I don't buy it. There are drivers all over the place. In my case, it's a prism2 driver, which is one of the more common ones out there for linux. What's more, the driver is sitting right there on the Knoppix disk, but Knoppix is looking for it in the wrong place and can't find it. I've posted this bug for three revisions straight. You may not think it's a big deal, because you can edit, recompile, remaster, what have you. But people who need wi-fi won't bother unless they're hacking for a hobby.

Excuses are for losers, and the linux community needs to decide whether or not it's satisfied with pointing fingers and making excuses, or whether it wants the OS to reach its potential.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gowator

Its often said that *bsd is a programmers/developers OS, designed as a programmer would wheras linux is a hackers OS...
Its pretty true and the hackers roots of linux still show .. but at the same time are what give linux its dynamics!

---

The way I always heard it was that BSD is for people who love UNIX - Linux is for people who hate Microsoft. :D

jd

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gowator

The wifi problem is a special problem for opensource and is due to FCC regulations .. so dont blame linux blame your government regulators.

---

I've been out of that end of things for decades, but I'm pretty sure FCC regulations still only apply to the r.f. emissions of a contraption. To the extent that software drivers could make a wi-fi transmitter interfere with other devices, FCC regulations may have some bearing on software. I would imagine, though, that wi-fi manufacturers have designed their hardware to make it nigh unto impossible for hackers to turn it into a jammer. No, the problem you're complaining about isn't the fault of government regulators. It must be in Linux.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j.drake

Most people choosing an OS don't care who's to blame - they only care what works. Blaming doesn't get anyone anywhere.
.
.

Excuses are for losers, and the linux community needs to decide whether or not it's satisfied with pointing fingers and making excuses, or whether it wants the OS to reach its potential.

---

Obviously Mr. Knopper has done about as much as anyone to further Linux' potential. In fact, Knoppix brings a whole new way to use computers: instead of the OS trying to be all things to everyone, all at once, now we can have applications-on-a disc which run from the CD independent of the OS on the hard drive. Like a gameboy or playstation, but not limited to games.

If Knoppmyth would run direct from the CD instead of requiring to be installed on the hard drive, it would be a perfect example of what I'm trying to get at. You would only need a hard drive with a lot of empty space on it, and a TV tuner card, available to the computer. Just boot the Knoppmyth CD and presto, you have a PVR. That particular computer application wouldn't require a lot of the stuff that is on the Knoppix CD, so it could be left out.

It might not be quite that easy, and it wouldn't work on every computer, but I sure think the idea of applications-on-a-CD has a lot of potential, since Knoppix' hardware detection and configuration showed the way..

Knoppix in effect already offers another application-on-a-CD: the internet appliance. Remember a few years ago several companies made a box you could use to surf the web and get your e-mail with, because that's all most people use their computer for. The beauty of the idea was partly its intended ease of use. Mr. Knopper has made the idea a reality, without really even trying to. When I boot the Knoppix CD it automatically senses my Zoom 5001 PCI card cable modem - a rare bird - and configures everything. All I have to do to get online is click on the browser icon at the bottom of the screen. Getting my e-mail from my ISP is a bit more complicated, but if I can figure it out without resorting to phone calls or notes, anyone can.

I don't mean to say that Mr. Knopper shouldn't continue to develop Knoppix as a general-purpose OS, but that it can be used for more than just that.

J. D. - it's me again :)
I can't let this happen uncommented:

Quote:

---

that linux needs to take in order to be a viable desktop replacement for Windows, at both the home and enterprise level.

---

Linux was meant as a unix for the 386.
That time, windows was having heavy problems with upper memory (>640 k) and multithreading.

Linux was never meant (and hopefully will never be) a windows-replacement.
Later you write 'windows alternative'.
That's much better.
You see the difference?

Replacement!
For Windows!
Ts, ts, ts, ...
---
don't visit my homepage:http://home/arcor.de/hirnstrom/

I like the idea of a central driver database. But I think that it would be a good idea to download the source code and auto compile & install rather then downloading binaries. This would help with the difference between platforms, kernels, API's etc. Though might take a bit longer.

Basicly a source apt-get for drivers (complete with the abiltiy to download and install dependencies.)


BTW is there anything that can track installed soruces so I can remove them easily like apt-get? If not, what files do I need to keep to be able to do a make uninstall?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by user unknown

J. D. - it's me again :)
I can't let this happen uncommented:

Quote:

---

that linux needs to take in order to be a viable desktop replacement for Windows, at both the home and enterprise level.

---

Linux was meant as a unix for the 386.
That time, windows was having heavy problems with upper memory (>640 k) and multithreading.

Linux was never meant (and hopefully will never be) a windows-replacement.
Later you write 'windows alternative'.
That's much better.
You see the difference?

Replacement!
For Windows!
Ts, ts, ts, ...
---
don't visit my homepage:http://home/arcor.de/hirnstrom/

---

UU, I understand. If nothing else, I have to respect you as one of the most incredibly principled persons I've encountered online (not to mention that your knowledge of linux is nearly encyclopedic). But, and I don't mean this as an insult, I've noticed that you're somewhat inflexible :wink: For example, it's a BFD to you if someone posts with an imperfect subject line. Sure, it's better to use an accurate subject, but c'mon, this is nearly obsessive. It is now 2004, and I don't think that anyone but you cares that linux was designed to run on a 386. Things evolve. That "subject line" (speaking metaphorically) has been permanently hijacked. Linux is about a lot of things now, and the opportunity is there to fully develop its potential. What we should be caring about is providing an awesome, free windows alternative. And, yes, now that you mention it, I can see the difference between replacement and alternative, but that's kind of nitpicky, IMO.

jd

You talk about an easy to use linux.
Fine.
And an easy to use forum means: Spent some time in finding an good subject-line.
Have respect on the resources of other persons.

I try to avoid clicking on 'help me with this' - subjects, but sometimes I get too angry, and I guess it's right.
A good subject can show immediatly: Here I can perhaps give a good advice. And there I surely can't give a hint - it's out of my scope.
And someone searching for 'mount usb' will find faster - perhaps find at all, that his question was answered.
And it needn't be answered again.
You may not even link to previous threads, if you don't find them.

The accurate subject-line is a kind of precompiled binary :)
---
Let's come to more interesting question, why I'm interested in the roots of linux.
It's a question of tradition. And tradition has to do with the culture - where do we come from? Who we are.
What's the identity of linux?

When I don't like the rain, it's not getting more sympathic when I know how it works, where it comes from. It will still be annoying in some cases.
But without understanding the phenomen I'm more helpless, than after understanding.

And it's interesting to study the history of windows too - how they bought a foreign system and sold it to IBM, how IBM became a standard, and DOS too, how windows evolved.

Without knowing the history, it would be hard to explain, how windows, the system of viruses, worms and bluescreens became marketleader, while the free and more stable linux-system was mostly ignored by industry and manufactors of hardware.

The decisions in the linux-development are mostly made from developers, not by marketing managers. And those have a very different culture, believings and intentions.

I don't know a sparc64 or an alpha - I wouldn't identify them, unless it's written on their front.
But seeing my programs running on a linux on these machines is goal enough for me, to study autoconf/ automake and build a classical, linux-tarball-source.
Newbies don't know 'configure; make; make install'?
Well - time to learn it.
It's not really a harder issue than click on install, click on accept license, click here and there.

I get the new kernel-patches about every two months now.
I don't have to recompile something else, but if I needed, I could without downloading a binary again.
Would a hardware-vendor give away his binaries for all the platforms (20) where linux is running? Probably not.
A marketing man wouldn't bother.
You wouldn't too.
A developer would.

Break linux-compatibility for a binary of vendor X?
Linux became as strong as it is today avoiding binaries. It's its strength.
While developers change, the source stays.

If your manufactor get's insolvent, no new binary will be released, and you're stuck to your 4-5 years old kernel, supporting that binary, which makes your expensive printer work. For example.

It's hard in the beginning, when you install linux for the first time, and have a lot of hardware, bought without thinking of linux.
Later we look for opensource-drivers before we buy.
The more people are going to buy opensource-driven hardware, the more pressure is made for the industrie. I guess the movements in the servermarket are showing, that linux is getting stronger from year to year.
An computer discount will try to present some lowcost knoppixfriendly printer, when more and more clients ask for them, and the concurent next street has one.

Here the developer - who likes to buy a linux-driven modem, -printer, -usbcam gets interested in marketing aspects.
But it's not the primary goal.

I wrote some opensource programs.
No hardware drivers.
I don't have 20 system-architectures available to test the program (while - I guess - the gcc can cross-compile for them).
Well - no problem.
I give away the source, and if there are problems, the user may debug it by himself.

What a wonderful world!

The signature-attachment doesn't work for me here, but a firefox-plugin came with source. Found a good place to add my primitive method, and voila!
---
don't visit my homepage:http://home.arcor.de/hirnstrom/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j.drake

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gowator

Its often said that *bsd is a programmers/developers OS, designed as a programmer would wheras linux is a hackers OS...
Its pretty true and the hackers roots of linux still show .. but at the same time are what give linux its dynamics!

---

The way I always heard it was that BSD is for people who love UNIX - Linux is for people who hate Microsoft. :D

jd

---

thats prob true too.

Im not trying to be elitist...my driver never worked although I did learn a lot about the linux usb stack trying and my work was used by others...
What Im trying to point out is what you were originally suggesting with drivers is the way BSD and Mac do it and Windows cludges it.
It really needs a microkernel to work like BSD and that is a compete (and I mean complete) change to the present kernel structure.

Usability means different things to different people but remember how brainwashed using one paradigm for years makes you.
We changed to notes at work and everyone was lost becuase the icons and menu's are not MS ones.... yet this is just a mail client..but all of us that used windows for years are brainwashed into thinking thats how things are done.

I stopped using MS about 7 years ago and now I find XP unfriendly...
but 7 years ago I was using slackware 2 which was almost nothing like any present linux (except LFS)
I used Macs at uni ages ago now (1991 my masters graduation) and I used to find it incredibly frustrating when it refused to do something trying to be too clever like telling me it had letter paper not a4 ... at the time this was way beyond Windows, now its usual...

at work I print and someone has changedf the printer paper, I dont have permissions to delete the job so I have to walk 1/2 mile down a corridor to hit a cancel button....

some things are genuinely useful additions but others are just seemingly useful ...
talking winblows for instance .. clippy drives me mad




Flash00: the problem is that the user must NOT be able to modify the power and releasing sourcecode contravenes that which is why they need binary firmware that is loaded and things like driverloader are needed to load them....

its just a freak of wording I think and the FCC didnt mean this to be the effect...but having said that they are not trying to correct it either.