[nasoieu]

Linux on the desktop would have succeeded with a stable driver API. Having hardware with closed source drivers supported could have being a walk in the park for OEMs. Bad 3D, wireless, etc. support is what killed Linux. OEMs would have probably made more and better drivers if they didn't have to make changes to them every few months or go through the effort of releasing and mainlining the source.

[btilly]

This is your opinion. The opinion of informed observers who are actually doing the work is the opposite - OEMs produce buggy, incomplete drivers and don't care to fix the bugs. In fact, given the choice, they don't want to allow anyone else to dig into their drivers because doing so can only lead to embarrassment. Plus exploits that are discovered are likely to be cross-platform exploits.

Any operating system that wishes stability therefore has to put barriers between themselves and the driver. And, preferably, should use drivers that they can audit themselves rather than trusting OEMs.

As an example of this outside of the open source world, the biggest reason why Windows used to have a reputation for BSODs is that they were dependent on third party drivers. Windows made it harder for third parties to take down their OS, shipped tools to audit drivers for bugs, and forced OEMs to clean up their act. (Which they didn't do voluntarily.)

[hinkley]

Three words:

Creative Fucking Labs.

Someone told me back then that the sound blaster drivers were responsible for more crashes than the next several causes combined, so I started watching and I’ll be damned if I didn’t see the same thing.

[renox]

If I remember well, there was a sound card which talked on the PCI bus after it should have stopped talking, these kind of bugs can break any OS, microkernel or not..

[nasoieu]

It's better to have buggy, incomplete drivers than no drivers at all.

[Dylan16807]

If you control the desktops and take strong measures to stop horribly-buggy drivers from working, 95% of manufacturers will fix the drivers because they want to sell the product.

In that tradeoff, I'll easily pick the marginally smaller market with vastly better drivers.

[iforgotpassword]

This is your opinion. I prefer using hardware with stable drivers, working reliably.

[jonny_eh]

That's why I use a Mac. Seems like a good solution is to have the OS and HW manufacturer to be one and the same.

[rleigh]

On the flip side, there are vastly fewer drivers. I can plug a random USB device into a Linux system and the chances are it just works. Same with Windows, though it might require the driver installing first. MacOS might not have any driver at all.

[nasoieu]

That's not what I said. Would you rather have no hardware or hardware that BSODs once a month?

[btilly]

That's a false dilemma.

The actual choice is whether to have limited hardware choices or hardware that crashes regularly. Put that way, it is obvious to me that limited hardware is the right answer.

Why? Because what I care about is having a system that works well for me. Limited choices are fine as long as I can determine in advance whether the system that I'm considering will work. (I usually can.) So now my choice boils down to, "Do I want to be able to buy a reliable system, or be forced to put up with a buggy one?"

Put that way, who wants to be forced to put up with bugs?

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

> Linux on the desktop would have succeeded with a stable driver API.

I doubt it. Linux desktop's problems run far, far deeper than that one questionable choice.