Drivers

[Don Erickson]

On Sat, 24 Feb 2001, Jonathan wrote:

> > From: Don Erickson [mailto:derick at shark.zeni.net]
> 
> > If Microsoft was responsible for writing and supporting the various
> > hardware drivers, as Linux is, there'd be a steaming train wreck on every
> > desktop. 
> 
> I don't think you could say "Linux" was any more responsible for writing
> drivers than Microsoft is.  (Aside from the fact that "Linux" really doesn't
> exist as an entity that could be held responsible.)  

Well, the amorphous communal entity that creates "Linux" also wrote and
maintains most of the hardware drivers that allow the rainbow of PC
hardware to function under linux.  Seeing as how the hardware
manufacturers themselves take the initiative to make certain that their
new FooCard runs under Windows, as they couldn't sell it if it didn't, I
still think that it's a valid point as to origin of hardware drivers that
run under Microsoft.  But, as you say, this is a situation that is slowly
changing.

> The problems with drivers for Microsoft products has often been that they
> don't meet the standards (which may be inadequate); they don't play well
> with other software, and they're full of bugs.  One thing Microsoft will do
> is publish a testing procedure, but even if something's been Microsoft
> certified (which most stuff hasn't), there's no guarantee it wasn't a
> configuration fluke that allowed it to pass.  

This is a good point.  Does the little "windows" logo on a box mean
anything except that it includes Windows Drivers?  Is there a special
"Microsoft Certified" statement or icon on the box?

Regards,

-Don
-- 
 .sig lite