3 ms·
> Hah. I've been through kernel panic hell more times than years in my age, and I'm OLD. So why do you pretend NOT to know at all that the kernel handles/provi
by bkor 9y ago
> Hah. I've been through kernel panic hell more times than years in my age, and I'm OLD.
So why do you pretend NOT to know at all that the kernel handles/provides drivers? If you're so experienced you should be well aware of that.
- comex 9y agoWell, Windows notably switched to a new graphics driver model in Vista that puts parts of graphics drivers in userland, in order to allow them to crash without taking down the system. But I think that's comparable to what Linux has always been doing with Mesa vs. DRM; not sure what the details look like though.
- lightedman 9y ago"So why do you pretend NOT to know at all that the kernel handles/provides drivers?" You're failing at reading and understanding any of my words, which means you're likely looking to start a problem. Okay, I'll play along. I know that the Kernel handles and provides drivers - what you're failing to understand is that I think it's HORRIBLE (and I can prove it hundreds of different ways on any Linux distro excepting maybe SELinux and its flavors.) Wake me up when the entire Linux graphics subsystem can crash without taking the entire computer, or one single app, along with it. Windows can do this. Linux can not. Linux is therefore doing things poorly. Even BSD handles this better. Every other OS excepting Linux has bothered to come into the modern age of graphics subsystems around 2007/2008. Linux is still behind and will remain so for the foreseeable future.