hi, all,
Have any one have the date of When will the Win10 release?
What version when release, such as alpah, beta and or any other?
And the most important question is:
will Win10 compatible with old version device driver, such as the WDDM driver on Win7,8,8.1?
The tech preview, and at least one update, have already been released:
http:
Windows has a REMARKABLE history of compatibility for drivers. There are many drivers running today that were written for Windows 2000, about 15 years ago. There are drivers that were written for Windows NT that are still working today.
Now, to be fair, a lot of these older drivers – even the ones with PnP and Power support – are starting to reach the end of their useful lives. They’re starting to see blue screens on various power scenarios that they perhaps weren’t built to handle.
But still… that’s pretty impressive. There’s no reason to believe this will change in the future. But you never know.
Peter
OSR
@OSRDrivers</http:>
Windows has a REMARKABLE history of compatibility for drivers. There are *many* drivers running today that were written for Windows 2000, about 15 years ago. There are drivers that were written for Windows NT that are still working today.
This is in contrast to Linux, where there is no binary compatibility of drivers between OS builds. Linux doesn’t even have a stable driver API set, and there is no plan to have one.
It seems like the driver compatability strategy on Linux is: you get your source code into the mainline source tree, and anybody who changes the mainline tree is supposed to also fix your driver if their change broke it. Of course the person who changed the mainline tree may not have your device, so there is no real way for them to run QA tests on the changes to your driver.
The situation of Linux driver compatibility seems to be described at https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/stable_api_nonsense.txt
Jan
For ~20 years of professional work in IT, this is a first time when I saw the article of such a cosmic scale and cosmic moronity 
The amount of subtle lies contained there is absolutely amazing.
The article is more like Russian or Ukrainian wartime propaganda, not like a professional IT article.
Max
> For ~20 years of professional work in IT, this is a first time when I saw the article of such a cosmic
scale and cosmic moronity
Oh, come on,“Windows fanboy”, it cannot possibly be more moronic than your NUMEROUS statements on various subjects that you made in this NG - from Pat Buchanan being liberal to fully preemptive kernels running faster than non-preemptive ones, can it…
The amount of subtle lies contained there is absolutely amazing.
Examples, please…
The article is more like Russian or Ukrainian wartime propaganda, not like a professional IT article.
The funniest thing here is, of course, is that this article is VERY mild and neutral, by Linus’s standards - I would normally expects something more"exciting" from someone who says that “real programmers do no need debuggers”…
Anton Bassov
>> The amount of subtle lies contained there is absolutely amazing.
Examples, please…
Praising Linux USB stack, which was rewritten 2 times from scratch with API compatibility losses due to moronic misdesigns in version 1 and 2 - is just plain funny.
Please, please say honestly: “our software architects, including our Lenin-style God who does not know what encapsulation is, were moronic enough to misdesign the USB stack twice, while, in the correctly designed OSes, and not only Windows, there were no such nonsense”.
I do not want to comment the thing detaily further. I just want to note that it assumes all developers are childish girls with pink flowers, which should be protected from the evils of this world (like deadlocks) at the cost of their freedom.
This attitude of a Soviet school teacher (or Dolores Umbridge, which is a well-known sample of a Soviet school teacher in English-speaking world) is extremely distasteful.
In Windows world, deadlocks in the USB stack are not an issue. This says something about professionalism of the MS’s USB stack team, if compared to the gang of leftist activists.
Now back to reality. Linux kernel interfaces are more or less mostly compatible (except USB), the largest (and sometimes the only significant) leap was at some particular kernel version like 4 years ago (I can look more, since I have not touched the topic for half a year or so).
And no, “Lenin-style God” about debuggers is by far lesser moronity. To most extent, Linus is correct there. Only children are fans of single-stepping though their functions.
And yes, even though I’m a Windows fanboy if Linus will say something bad about Visual Studio’s XML project files - then there is probability I will sincerely agree with him
–
Maxim S. Shatskih
Microsoft MVP on File System And Storage
xxxxx@storagecraft.com
http://www.storagecraft.com
>And yes, even though I’m a Windows fanboy if Linus will say something bad about Visual Studio’s XML project files - then there is probability I will sincerely agree with him
Linus is angry about GNOME and not about KDevelop, which is a clone of Visual Studio.
> Linus is angry about GNOME and not about KDevelop, which is a clone of Visual Studio.
Kate/KDevelop is a clone in terms of editor, but what about project files?
–
Maxim S. Shatskih
Microsoft MVP on File System And Storage
xxxxx@storagecraft.com
http://www.storagecraft.com
Wisdom! Let us be attentive!
Spoken like a true engineer, Mr. Dyess. Bravo.
A world where interfaces and behaviors are stable is terrific. But it can make real innovation difficult.
A world where interfaces and behaviors change regularly enabled dynamic growth and adaptation. But can be frustrating and regularly destabilizing.
Engineering is about trade-offs, and the suitability of things to their particular purposes. It’s not usually a good practice to use a 2x4 for a roof rafter… unless you’re building a chicken coop for a location that gets no snow. There’s nothing wrong with 240V, unless you try to put it through a 1.0mm (19 AWG) wire at 50A.
Then there is the realm of religion, which is where the “Linux sucks” or “anything but K&R style bracing” arguments reside. While these things may both be true, believing them is a matter of personal belief and faith.
Nothing much to see here, folks, let’s move on.
Thanks Mr. Dyess,
Peter
OSR
@OSRDrivers
Maxim S. Shatskih wrote:
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/stable_api_nonsense.txt
For ~20 years of professional work in IT, this is a first time when I saw the article of such a cosmic scale and cosmic moronityThe amount of subtle lies contained there is absolutely amazing.
The article is more like Russian or Ukrainian wartime propaganda, not like a professional IT article.
Greg Kroah-Hartman is an extremely bright individual who happens to
believe deeply in the GPL religion.
To quote the venerable Obi-Wan Kenobi, “you’re going to find that many
of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.”
–
Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
So, getting back to the Windows 10 thing… is 10 supposed to be a major enhancement release like Vista seemed to be (there seems to be a lot of kernel functionality that is found in Vista and later)?
PS I just took the OSR Driver class in Sterling, VA - it was very good. I am a total Windows device driver novice, so forgive my utter lack of knowledge of what is to come (and what has already transpired). That said, I have developed Linux drivers for years for a wide variety of hardware - outside of a small subset of use cases not sure that either platform is really any better than the other.
>outside of a small subset of use cases not sure that either platform is really any better than the other.
Technically, Linux is better in one family of things, while Windows in another.
But some statements of GPL religion zealots are really amazing.
–
Maxim S. Shatskih
Microsoft MVP on File System And Storage
xxxxx@storagecraft.com
http://www.storagecraft.com
>And the most important question is:
will Win10 compatible with old version device driver, such as the WDDM driver on
Win7,8,8.1?
That’s what a technical preview is about, you should download the preview and perform tests.
http://technet.microsoft.com/fr-fr/windows/dn798751.aspx?ocid=wc-mscom-wol
Well, it seems to be that this is really a comparison between two fundamentally different approaches to dealing with the issue of driver installation - binary vs source code.
Windows maintains a wild level of backwards compatibility, while Linux does not even attempt such (because you simply recompile everything). Both approaches have strengths and weaknesses - for instance I can patch a Linux kernel and get super hard (well, as hard was you will possibly get on a general purpose CPU) real-time determinism (www.xenomai.org). This is something that you will never see from Windows in its current incarnation and if we ever do I bet all these drivers shatter like so much movie candy glass. (Don’t get me started about the third party real time extensions out there - I evaluated quite a few… they were all garbage.)
Buggy bus subsystem? Fix kernel, recompile drivers. A few drivers may break, but that is only the kernel plumbing - easy enough to patch. Definitely a strength of that argument.
That said if I try to install that super spiffy binary real time kernel module I just produced on an exact HW copy of that Linux machine which isn’t so patched or has a X.YZ kernel as opposed to X.YY… well… kernel panics are SO much more fun than the BSOD, but that is only my opinion. That is, if it loads the driver at all. Tracking the problem down…? Ha! Why bother? The solution will be to recompile it first anyway, then debug.
But then again - very few people need this type of real time behavior. It is an edge use case. If you can run a sound card and display a movie smoothly - who cares about a few microseconds of timing slop? Most folks aren’t programming a ballistic missile reentry vehicle or a computer that is controlling an injured child’s brain patterns (I actually saw this at NIH - child had a Beagleboard sticking out of his head. It was running Slackware.).
Windows on the other hand, you can throw binaries around all day long with no rhyme or reason… and as long as you pay a minimal amount of attention to things like processor type it will probably work. Which, let’s face it, is all most people care about at 4:37 on a Friday afternoon. When dealing with thousands of installed systems of all variety of OS versions, service packs, what not… oy! Windows, much more better.
Seems to me it is probably best to be versed in both approaches - after all a lot of the hardware I have written drivers for can be ported to Windows with the right wrapper code, and that is precisely what I intend to do in some cases (although this current gig is all software only drivers - something I have rarely seen in Linux.)
As far as the whole license thing goes, well, I just paste the GPL comment on (unless it is for work, then cut and paste on what the tell me to) and call it a day. Usually the code is included with the product anyway… (see first paragraph). Dealing with the bombastic personalities of the open source evangelists can be a bit taxing. Personally I lean more towards their POV simply because it is easier for me as a developer to deal with source.
Good luck getting my mother to do so (but then again hiding the recompile behind a progress bar and she would never know the difference).
BTW there is nothing stopping anyone from GPL-ing their Windows driver if that is their kink.
Apples, oranges, and clementines…
xxxxx@hexiscyber.com wrote:
Well, it seems to be that this is really a comparison between two fundamentally different approaches to dealing with the issue of driver installation - binary vs source code.
Whether I agree with it all or not, this was a well-written analysis. A
tip of the hat to you.
BTW there is nothing stopping anyone from GPL-ing their Windows driver if that is their kink.
Actually, there is. If you use the Microsoft SDK and WDK to build your
driver, as virtually everyone does, then you agreed to a Microsoft end
user license agreement when you installed it. That EULA limits what you
can do with the samples and libraries in the kits. In particular, there
is text that explicit prohibits distributing any “redistributable code”
in such a way that it becomes subject to GPL. The KMDF coinstallers are
part of that “redistributable code”.
–
Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
Nothing says you have to ship the KMDF co-installers, thought, right?
Seriously.
Hmmmm… whatever happened to the idea of distributing the KMDF/UMDF libraries via WU, like .Net?? Did that ever happen? Anybody know?
Peter
OSR
@OSRDrivers
xxxxx@osr.com wrote:
Nothing says you have to ship the KMDF co-installers, thought, right?
That’s true. There was a time when it was essentially mandatory, but if
you don’t care about XP any more, then you’re right.
–
Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
> Well, it seems to be that this is really a comparison between two fundamentally different
approaches to dealing with the issue of driver installation - binary vs source code.
Well, as far as security is concerned, the former approach is really stupid. MSFT realized it, and responded with even more stupid idea of driver signing…
The funniest thing here is that you don’t really need to distribute your drivers in a source form in order to enjoy all the security benefits that this approach offers. All you have to do is to compile your code to some intermediate bytecode during the build process, and make the installation one compile this intermediate code into the final executable format. If you do things this way you will be able to sign your driver code with some key that is unique and specific to a given OS installation(for example, it can be derived from the product key that is supposed to be unique). Any driver that has not been signed with this key will be rejected by the kernel exactly the same way insmod refuses to load drivers that haven’t been built against currently running kernel.
This is how you can ensure that all drivers that are allowed to run on a given machine have been authorized to do so by the user by the virtue of having been installed on the target machine. After all, it is user’s machine, and, hence, it is his/her/its right to allow any drivers that he/she/it wants to run on the machine regardless of MSFT’s “opinion” on a driver writer…
Anton Bassov
Much to my dismay KMDF updates do happen and they can block other installs
while they are happening.
Mark Roddy
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 2:27 PM, wrote:
>
>
> Nothing says you have to ship the KMDF co-installers, thought, right?
>
> Seriously.
>
> Hmmmm… whatever happened to the idea of distributing the KMDF/UMDF
> libraries via WU, like .Net?? Did that ever happen? Anybody know?
>
> Peter
> OSR
> @OSRDrivers
>
>
> —
> NTDEV is sponsored by OSR
>
> Visit the list at: http://www.osronline.com/showlists.cfm?list=ntdev
>
> OSR is HIRING!! See http://www.osr.com/careers
>
> For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit:
> http://www.osr.com/seminars
>
> To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
> http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
>
Via WU? If so, that’s cool… I’ve never SEEN it, but I heard it MIGHT happen.
Peter
OSR
@OSRDrivers