4 ms·
Yep, utterly backwards. That kind of thing should be purely in driver space where it belongs, hooked on a driver model and not a kernel upstream model. It's fu
by lightedman 9y ago
Yep, utterly backwards. That kind of thing should be purely in driver space where it belongs, hooked on a driver model and not a kernel upstream model.
It's funny that Microsoft learned this problem and fixed it back in 2007-ish. Well, in another 30 years Linux will catch up. Maybe.
- shmerl 9y agoMS didn't fix it. They simply froze their abstraction and everyone expects it to be the same. Linux supports kernel modularity for a long time already. The only difference - they don't guarantee interfaces to be set in stone. So clearly they aren't interested in "catching up", since they do it on purpose. I don't necessary agree that it works for their goals (preventing messed up un-upstreamable kernel modules), but they do it for a reason.
- lightedman 9y ago"MS didn't fix it." Linux can't lose the GPU without taking the entire system or the program it's operating down. Windows can have the entire subsystem crash and come right back up almost instantly without loss of screen data, including active game windows. Microsoft most certainly fixed their graphics problems that were rampant from NT4 through Vista.
- dingo_bat 9y agoMeanwhile windows is able to restart the entire graphics subsystem with a new driver without losing apps. I doubt linux will ever reach these levels.
- shmerl 9y agoYeah, right. Windows can do this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eP31lluUDWU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eP31lluUDWU