On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 03:07 +0300, Sergei Steshenko wrote: > On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 19:43:42 -0400 > Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 02:39 +0300, Sergei Steshenko wrote: > > > No, I don't. > > > > > > I realize that there were Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows NT, > > > Windows 2000, Windows XP. > > > > > > Or Solaris 4..10. > > > > > > Or whatever. > > > > > > That is, from time to time binary interface specs get updated as > > > necessary. > > > > > > Now, symmetrically, do you realize that refusal to stabilize ABI > > > indicates failure first to think and then to do ? > > > > > > > > > That is, Linux was not the first to implement suspend/resume, so > > > not taking this into account indicates a flaw/failure in the first > > > place. > > > > > > > Um, the XP kernel has not been updated in years! You are proposing we > > go to a Microsoft-like release schedule where we only update the kernel > > every 3-4 years. > > > > [MUNCH] > > I want to be able to install updated (ALSA or any Linux for that matter) > driver > with no more clicks/keystrokes I need under Windows - however much I dislike > Windows. This is my reason. > > If present Linux development kernel does not allow me to do this, then > the model is at fault.
If your distribution supports it, upgrading alsa kernel modules - for example - should be as easy as upgrading any other package (using yum, apt-get or the package manager of your choice). I've been doing it for a long time. There's nothing in the kernel development model that precludes that. -- Fernando _______________________________________________ Alsa-user mailing list Alsa-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-user
