4 ms·
> People should learn some windows behaviors are not normal > drivers belong to the kernel No, they do not. A modern computer is extremely modular, and the dr
by delta_p_delta_x 4y ago
> People should learn some windows behaviors are not normal
> drivers belong to the kernel
No, they do not. A modern computer is extremely modular, and the driver subsystem should be equally modular and allow easy plug-and-play. The Windows NT driver model excels at this, and the Linux model of compiling drivers into the kernel is comparatively asinine. Every time I update the Nvidia driver on Arch I have to wait for it to compile into the kernel with DKMS.
For the record, I find some UNIX behaviours equally anachronistic.
- 'Every file is a bag of bytes'
- 'A dot in front of a file/directory means it's hidden'
- 'The OS as an IDE'
- 'Config files are plaintext files that need to be parsed by every single program' (this is now leaking into Windows, too)
etc.
- marcodiego 4y ago>> drivers belong to the kernel > No, they do not. A modern computer is extremely modular, and the driver subsystem should be equally modular and allow easy plug-and-play. I get this. > The Windows NT driver model excels at this, and the Linux model of compiling drivers into the kernel is comparatively asinine. The linux driver model guaranteed me much better compatibility when using the SAME driver under different architectures and they continued worked when the kernel was updated. > Every time I update the Nvidia driver on Arch I have to wait for it to compile into the kernel with DKMS. This is a good example of the problems that happen when a driver is not in the kernel. >For the record, I find some UNIX behaviours equally anachronistic. Sure! One of my favorites: you can't have a directory with ":" in its name on your PATH.