[Xorg] The big multiconsole nasty

Egbert Eich eich at pdx.freedesktop.org
Wed Jul 7 04:12:04 PDT 2004

Adam Jackson writes:
 > I would posit, however, that OS-independence in drivers is a false economy.  
 > OSes are cheap, get a multi-boot rig and compile them all directly.  Or use a 
 > cross-compiler.  From the perspective of the graphics card manufacturer, 
 > you'd need to have the target platform around for testing anyway if you're 
 > going to declare it a supported platform.

Well, do we believe the average developer will set up multiple
OSes or set up cross compile environments to provide binaries 
for all supported OSes? What about the non-free OSes we support?

 > Finally, if all else fails, it may be possible to keep the old loader around 
 > specifically for obstreperous vendors who don't feel like adding another 
 > machine to the compile farm.  This would need some hacking to make work - in 
 > my tests the two module loaders are _not_ cross-callable - but it should be 
 > doable.
That may be an option. Currently symbol names from the dll modules cannot
be exported to the internal loader.

I also would like to call for a careful evaluation of the situation.
Most of the people here belong to the Linux community so they probably
don't care. 
However I would very much like to hear the opinions of those who use
other OSes as they may be deprived of the possibility of loading binary
only device drivers in the future.


More information about the xorg mailing list