> Is NDIS a framework or not ?
No. It is an essential OS component. Its goal is to do the real work, not to
simplify the driver coding for somebody.
Is FiltMgr a framework or not ?
Maybe yes, BTW.
Do they deserve to have the same status or not ?
NDIS - no (an OS component), FltMgr IMHO yes.
–
Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
StorageCraft Corporation
xxxxx@storagecraft.com
http://www.storagecraft.com
I wonder, among those who are clamoring for Microsoft to publicize this source base, who would be willing to do the same for their drivers without hesitation? After all, a driver is just an intermediary required by the OS to make the hardware operate, and cannot be used on other competitive platforms…
I ask my fine fellows on the list to take a breath, and consider how to word this desire more constructively.
That said, I always favor as much openness as a vendor is willing to provide, but I also do not fear black boxes. As others have pointed out, there is always one at some level. I have worked around hardware and BIOS bugs without ever knowing the details, but the details might have saved me a little time.
I would be happy to browse through the KMDF sources, and maybe once in three years it will prove handy to me. When I will want this access, I will want it quickly, so minimal hurdles are desired. For example, making it free of charge means I don’t have to get approval from my CFO to spend money, regardless of how small the fee might be. It does make me a little nervous to throw out phrases like “widely available”, as there are plenty of inexperienced/unethical folks out there that would abuse the access. (Wasn’t MFC DLL hell the origin of this fear? I’m a bit young to know.) But, make it accessible to anyone if they ask? Sure, sounds good.
-Eric.
wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>I wonder, among those who are clamoring for Microsoft to publicize this
>source base, who would be willing to do the same for their drivers without
>hesitation? After all, a driver is just an intermediary required by the
>OS to make the hardware operate, and cannot be used on other competitive
>platforms…
I definitely have to take exception to the above statement. First for
hardware devices, the driver can be a significant cost, and one can
leverage a driver for a similar device in many instances, saving a ton of
money (just ask some consulting firms that license code to you how many
times they have reused a driver). Second, there are a lot of drivers that
do not require hardware, these are the product themselves, so you are
giving away everything.
The claim on drivers shows a total lack of understanding of the industry.
–
Don Burn (MVP, Windows DDK)
Windows 2k/XP/2k3 Filesystem and Driver Consulting
Website: http://www.windrvr.com
Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr
Remove StopSpam to reply
Oh, I agree. I don’t think I worded my devil’s advocation quite right, and I admit that I am not involved in consulting. At my prior company, the driver was an extra development cost for the hardware we sold. Feel free to substitute any well-invested but not sold direct-to-the-customer software in place of “driver”. 
Just trying to get people thinking.
-Eric.
I wonder, among those who are clamoring for Microsoft to publicize this
source base, who would be willing to do the same for their drivers without
hesitation? After all, a driver is just an intermediary required by the
OS to make the hardware operate, and cannot be used on other competitive
platforms…
I definitely have to take exception to the above statement. First for hardware devices, the driver can be a significant cost, and one can leverage a driver for a similar device in many instances, saving a ton of money (just ask some consulting firms that license code to you how many times they have reused a driver). Second, there are a lot of drivers that do not require hardware, these are the product themselves, so you are giving away everything. The claim on drivers shows a total lack of understanding of the industry.
…and we’re not asking any one to do what we want, trying to be the
center of it all, nor are we attributing 75% of blue screens to someone
from whom we are deciding to keep information. I have no issue
whatsoever we Microsoft wanting to keep private any source code; it
isn’t my first choice, but so what. I agree with your sentiment about
many here being rather cavalier about entitlement to source code, but
the scenario you propose and their have, in my opinion, not all that
much in common.
mm
>> xxxxx@acm.org 2007-06-12 16:38 >>>
wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>I wonder, among those who are clamoring for Microsoft to publicize
this
>source base, who would be willing to do the same for their drivers
without
>hesitation? After all, a driver is just an intermediary required by
the
>OS to make the hardware operate, and cannot be used on other
competitive
>platforms…
I definitely have to take exception to the above statement. First for
hardware devices, the driver can be a significant cost, and one can
leverage a driver for a similar device in many instances, saving a ton
of
money (just ask some consulting firms that license code to you how many
times they have reused a driver). Second, there are a lot of drivers
that
do not require hardware, these are the product themselves, so you are
giving away everything.
The claim on drivers shows a total lack of understanding of the
industry.
–
Don Burn (MVP, Windows DDK)
Windows 2k/XP/2k3 Filesystem and Driver Consulting
Website: http://www.windrvr.com
Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr
Remove StopSpam to reply
—
Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
> -----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com [mailto:bounce-289954-
xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of xxxxx@mindspring.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 1:28 PM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: RE:[ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?I wonder, among those who are clamoring for Microsoft to publicize
this
source base, who would be willing to do the same for their drivers
without
hesitation? After all, a driver is just an intermediary required by
the
OS to make the hardware operate, and cannot be used on other
competitive
platforms…
That’s different. Driver can be used by competition for similar hardware
at the same platform. Not as-is but as a reference for solutions of
similar problems. We’re in different position than MS who has no real
competition in OS business.
I would be happy to browse through the KMDF sources, and maybe once in
three years it will prove handy to me.
Well, in my experience sources of something I use are handy every day I
develop with given API or environment. They aren’t necessary in most
cases but they save development and debug time and help understading
which in turn improve quality.
When I will want this access, I
will want it quickly, so minimal hurdles are desired. For example,
making
it free of charge means I don’t have to get approval from my CFO to
spend
money, regardless of how small the fee might be. It does make me a
little
nervous to throw out phrases like “widely available”, as there are
plenty
of inexperienced/unethical folks out there that would abuse the
access.
So you believe unethical folks wouldn’t ask for it? Or even MS have a
way how to distinguish unethical people?
IMO all these concerns aren’t justified. There is no security by
obscurity and unethical people always find the way how to get necessary
info. There are disassemblers and debuggers.
(Wasn’t MFC DLL hell the origin of this fear? I’m a bit young to
know.)
No. IIRC MFC DLL hell was caused purely by MS who released incompatible
DLLs with the same name.
But, make it accessible to anyone if they ask? Sure, sounds good.
Why not. Anything which makes is available for people who need it
without unreasonable restrictions.
Michal
Martin,
It is not clear to me if you are commenting on Eric’s post or my
response. On the 75% BSOD’s remember a couple of things:
This is 75% of the ones that Microsoft has decoded so in actuality
is roughly 38% of crashes reported to Microsoft.
There are a few companies and drivers doing most of the damage.
I suspect that most of the regulars on this group do not contribute many.
Note: I say most, because I keep bidding on contracts to rewrite drivers
from some regulars, where the company that has the driver says “great
prototype, but it crashes like crazy in production”.
I have seen the Microsoft data both at WinHEC’s and through other
means and I have no doubt that the problems being attributed to lousy 3rd
party drivers are there. I know of one driver that had a couple of little
mistakes (actually you can probably say things they forgot to do):
a. They never tested for NULL from ExAllocatePool
b. They never discovered the call ExFreePool…
And this was a production driver shipped with a product a few years ago.
–
Don Burn (MVP, Windows DDK)
Windows 2k/XP/2k3 Filesystem and Driver Consulting
Website: http://www.windrvr.com
Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr
Remove StopSpam to reply
“Martin O’Brien” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> .and we’re not asking any one to do what we want, trying to be the
> center of it all, nor are we attributing 75% of blue screens to someone
> from whom we are deciding to keep information. I have no issue
> whatsoever we Microsoft wanting to keep private any source code; it
> isn’t my first choice, but so what. I agree with your sentiment about
> many here being rather cavalier about entitlement to source code, but
> the scenario you propose and their have, in my opinion, not all that
> much in common.
>
> mm
>
>>>> xxxxx@acm.org 2007-06-12 16:38 >>>
>
> wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>>I wonder, among those who are clamoring for Microsoft to publicize
> this
>>source base, who would be willing to do the same for their drivers
> without
>>hesitation? After all, a driver is just an intermediary required by
> the
>>OS to make the hardware operate, and cannot be used on other
> competitive
>>platforms…
>
> I definitely have to take exception to the above statement. First for
>
> hardware devices, the driver can be a significant cost, and one can
> leverage a driver for a similar device in many instances, saving a ton
> of
> money (just ask some consulting firms that license code to you how many
>
> times they have reused a driver). Second, there are a lot of drivers
> that
> do not require hardware, these are the product themselves, so you are
> giving away everything.
>
> The claim on drivers shows a total lack of understanding of the
> industry.
>
>
> –
> Don Burn (MVP, Windows DDK)
> Windows 2k/XP/2k3 Filesystem and Driver Consulting
> Website: http://www.windrvr.com
> Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr
> Remove StopSpam to reply
>
>
>
> —
> Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
> http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
>
> To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
> http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
>
Don:
Rereading my post, I certainly wasn’t very clear. I was commenting on
Eric’s. I agree totally with yours. I have no doubts about most
crashes being from 3rd parties either. Nor, in the big picture, do I
care a great deal either way whether they publish source code or not; my
preference would be yes, but only because it just becomes another
option, and would certainly be situationally useful. All I was really
trying to say, and did not do a very good job, is that, while I do agree
with his sentiment that some are portraying this decision as risk free
and more or less obviously the RIGHT thing do, and that that is rather
naive, I don’t see the situation he proposed and Microsoft’s over KMDF
source code as particularly similar.
Sorry about that,
mm
Eric’s
>> xxxxx@acm.org 2007-06-12 18:42 >>>
Martin,
It is not clear to me if you are commenting on Eric’s post or my
response. On the 75% BSOD’s remember a couple of things:
This is 75% of the ones that Microsoft has decoded so in
actuality
is roughly 38% of crashes reported to Microsoft.
There are a few companies and drivers doing most of the
damage.
I suspect that most of the regulars on this group do not contribute
many.
Note: I say most, because I keep bidding on contracts to rewrite
drivers
from some regulars, where the company that has the driver says “great
prototype, but it crashes like crazy in production”.
I have seen the Microsoft data both at WinHEC’s and through other
means and I have no doubt that the problems being attributed to lousy
3rd
party drivers are there. I know of one driver that had a couple of
little
mistakes (actually you can probably say things they forgot to do):
a. They never tested for NULL from ExAllocatePool
b. They never discovered the call ExFreePool…
And this was a production driver shipped with a product a few years
ago.
–
Don Burn (MVP, Windows DDK)
Windows 2k/XP/2k3 Filesystem and Driver Consulting
Website: http://www.windrvr.com
Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr
Remove StopSpam to reply
“Martin O’Brien” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> .and we’re not asking any one to do what we want, trying to be the
> center of it all, nor are we attributing 75% of blue screens to
someone
> from whom we are deciding to keep information. I have no issue
> whatsoever we Microsoft wanting to keep private any source code; it
> isn’t my first choice, but so what. I agree with your sentiment
about
> many here being rather cavalier about entitlement to source code,
but
> the scenario you propose and their have, in my opinion, not all that
> much in common.
>
> mm
>
>>>> xxxxx@acm.org 2007-06-12 16:38 >>>
>
> wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>>I wonder, among those who are clamoring for Microsoft to publicize
> this
>>source base, who would be willing to do the same for their drivers
> without
>>hesitation? After all, a driver is just an intermediary required by
> the
>>OS to make the hardware operate, and cannot be used on other
> competitive
>>platforms…
>
> I definitely have to take exception to the above statement. First
for
>
> hardware devices, the driver can be a significant cost, and one can
> leverage a driver for a similar device in many instances, saving a
ton
> of
> money (just ask some consulting firms that license code to you how
many
>
> times they have reused a driver). Second, there are a lot of
drivers
> that
> do not require hardware, these are the product themselves, so you
are
> giving away everything.
>
> The claim on drivers shows a total lack of understanding of the
> industry.
>
>
> –
> Don Burn (MVP, Windows DDK)
> Windows 2k/XP/2k3 Filesystem and Driver Consulting
> Website: http://www.windrvr.com
> Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr
> Remove StopSpam to reply
>
>
>
> —
> Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
> http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
>
> To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
> http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
>
—
Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
> Precisely how is this framework different from MFC, ATL, and .NET…oh
yeah…its kernel code. Okay…sooooooo???
Hmmm… IIRC, MFC and ATL are only available to people who have bought VS, so they’re not really freely available (like KMDF would be if they put it with the DDK).
Regarding .NET framework source, I don’t know of this ever being released, to anyone. But if it has, I would like to get in on that!
-Stephen Cleary
> Hmmm… IIRC, MFC and ATL are only available to people who have bought VS,
so they’re not really freely available (like KMDF would be if they put it
with the DDK).
What? The WDK isn’t freely available either. Unless something has changed
recently.
Regarding .NET framework source, I don’t know of this ever being released,
to anyone. But if it has, I would like to get in on that!
Okay, well strictly correct. But, there is Mono and the CLR source is
publicly available. So, semi-bad example.
Bill M.
wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>> Precisely how is this framework different from MFC, ATL, and .NET…oh
>> yeah…its kernel code. Okay…sooooooo???
>
> Hmmm… IIRC, MFC and ATL are only available to people who have bought VS,
> so they’re not really freely available (like KMDF would be if they put it
> with the DDK).
>
> Regarding .NET framework source, I don’t know of this ever being released,
> to anyone. But if it has, I would like to get in on that!
>
> -Stephen Cleary
>
> What? The WDK isn’t freely available either. Unless something has changed
recently.
I got it for free, from Microsoft Connect. All you need is a Hotmail account:
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/DevTools/WDK/betawdk.mspx
-Stephen Cleary
Your a beta tester…that isn’t free.
Bill M.
wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>> What? The WDK isn’t freely available either. Unless something has
>> changed
>> recently.
>
> I got it for free, from Microsoft Connect. All you need is a Hotmail
> account:
> http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/DevTools/WDK/betawdk.mspx
>
> -Stephen Cleary
>
“Bill McKenzie” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>> Hmmm… IIRC, MFC and ATL are only available to people who have bought
>> VS, so they’re not really freely available (like KMDF would be if they
>> put it with the DDK).
>
> What? The WDK isn’t freely available either. Unless something has
> changed recently.
The WDK is freely available …
>
>> Regarding .NET framework source, I don’t know of this ever being
>> released, to anyone. But if it has, I would like to get in on that!
>
> Okay, well strictly correct. But, there is Mono and the CLR source is
> publicly available. So, semi-bad example.
>
> Bill M.
There is also wxWidgets …
Bill,
What are you talking about? There is no requirement to be a beta
tester. It used to be that the WDK was on the WHDC site free of charge for
the downloads. The size and the popularity of the WDK overloaded WHDC, so
they moved it to Connect which has the bandwidth and is set up to for lots
of big downloads. The WDK is completely free, you do need a passport
account, but as was pointed out you can create a throwaway account if you
are that paranoid.
–
Don Burn (MVP, Windows DDK)
Windows 2k/XP/2k3 Filesystem and Driver Consulting
Website: http://www.windrvr.com
Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr
Remove StopSpam to reply
“Bill McKenzie” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> Your a beta tester…that isn’t free.
>
> Bill M.
>
> wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>>> What? The WDK isn’t freely available either. Unless something has
>>> changed
>>> recently.
>>
>> I got it for free, from Microsoft Connect. All you need is a Hotmail
>> account:
>> http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/DevTools/WDK/betawdk.mspx
>>
>> -Stephen Cleary
>>
>
>
>
Oh…oops…my bad…I thought everything on connect was a Beta program. I
am in the Betas anyway so…
Okay…fine so back to the argument…charge money for it…force it to be
part of MSDN like before. Whatever, giving out the source to KMDF would be
just like MFC or ATL…geeze…the point is clear right?? Do we really need
to get caught up in this minutia? Is the point not painfully obvious here?
Bill M.
“Don Burn” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> Bill,
>
> What are you talking about? There is no requirement to be a beta
> tester. It used to be that the WDK was on the WHDC site free of charge
> for the downloads. The size and the popularity of the WDK overloaded
> WHDC, so they moved it to Connect which has the bandwidth and is set up to
> for lots of big downloads. The WDK is completely free, you do need a
> passport account, but as was pointed out you can create a throwaway
> account if you are that paranoid.
>
>
> –
> Don Burn (MVP, Windows DDK)
> Windows 2k/XP/2k3 Filesystem and Driver Consulting
> Website: http://www.windrvr.com
> Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr
> Remove StopSpam to reply
>
> “Bill McKenzie” wrote in message
> news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>> Your a beta tester…that isn’t free.
>>
>> Bill M.
>>
>> wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>>>> What? The WDK isn’t freely available either. Unless something has
>>>> changed
>>>> recently.
>>>
>>> I got it for free, from Microsoft Connect. All you need is a Hotmail
>>> account:
>>> http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/DevTools/WDK/betawdk.mspx
>>>
>>> -Stephen Cleary
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
It’s obvious to most of us Bill, and from our long ago discussions with
the KMDF devs, it was obvious to them too. This has always been, as far
as I can tell, a management issue at msft.
-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Bill McKenzie
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 10:28 AM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: Re:[ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?
Oh…oops…my bad…I thought everything on connect was a Beta program.
I
am in the Betas anyway so…
Okay…fine so back to the argument…charge money for it…force it to
be
part of MSDN like before. Whatever, giving out the source to KMDF would
be
just like MFC or ATL…geeze…the point is clear right?? Do we really
need
to get caught up in this minutia? Is the point not painfully obvious
here?
Bill M.
“Don Burn” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> Bill,
>
> What are you talking about? There is no requirement to be a beta
> tester. It used to be that the WDK was on the WHDC site free of
charge
> for the downloads. The size and the popularity of the WDK overloaded
> WHDC, so they moved it to Connect which has the bandwidth and is set
up to
> for lots of big downloads. The WDK is completely free, you do need a
> passport account, but as was pointed out you can create a throwaway
> account if you are that paranoid.
>
>
> –
> Don Burn (MVP, Windows DDK)
> Windows 2k/XP/2k3 Filesystem and Driver Consulting
> Website: http://www.windrvr.com
> Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr
> Remove StopSpam to reply
>
> “Bill McKenzie” wrote in message
> news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>> Your a beta tester…that isn’t free.
>>
>> Bill M.
>>
>> wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>>>> What? The WDK isn’t freely available either. Unless something has
>>>> changed
>>>> recently.
>>>
>>> I got it for free, from Microsoft Connect. All you need is a Hotmail
>>> account:
>>> http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/DevTools/WDK/betawdk.mspx
>>>
>>> -Stephen Cleary
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
—
Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
There’s more to life than choosing sides.
mm
>> xxxxx@sbcglobal.net 2007-06-13 08:38 >>>
Your a beta tester…that isn’t free.
Bill M.
wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>> What? The WDK isn’t freely available either. Unless something has
>> changed
>> recently.
>
> I got it for free, from Microsoft Connect. All you need is a Hotmail
> account:
> http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/DevTools/WDK/betawdk.mspx
>
> -Stephen Cleary
>
—
Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer