|
|
|
|
|
|
by seanwilson
972 days ago
|
|
|
> That is why everybody attempts to push their modules into the kernel source. > Those who cannot do that because their modules are not open source, like NVIDIA, have a lot of work to do for module maintenance. Say someone gets a driver for a WiFi USB stick into the kernel source and leaves it for others to maintain. Wouldn't the maintainers need the hardware device for testing changes and an understanding of the hardware's quirks to keep the driver updated? Obviously the system works but I don't get how it doesn't suffer from software rot, especially when physical hardware is required for robust testing including testing the hardware against different motherboards. |
|
|
They can't test what they don't have, and I haven't seen evidence than any open source kernel has a testinfg time with large fleet of hardware for tests. There's more or less an incidental distributed test fleet as users have various testing setups, etc; but driver mistakes in obscure hardware tends to get found late.
It's not unusual for drivers to be found to have been broken for years, and then unless the reporter can fix it, or the fix is obvious from the report, the driver gets removed.
Another path towards driver removal is some interfaces get updated in multiple steps: a new interface is added, drivers are updated to the new interface, the old interface and any drivers that haven't been updated are removed. If nobody has stepped up to update the driver before removal, that's an indication of disuse; sometimes they get added back after removal though.
For the record, Windows isn't necessarily better. I had a printer where there was a working driver, but Windows would prefer the non-working driver from Windows Update, and it was impossible to get that fixed.