←back to thread

520 points OlympicMarmoto | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
jnwatson ◴[] No.45067216[source]
I've written a lot of low level software, BSPs, and most of an OS, and the main reason to not write your own OS these days is silicon vendors. Back in the day, they would provide you a spec detailed enough that you could feasibly write your own drivers.

These days, you get a medium-level description and a Linux driver of questionable quality. Part of this is just laziness, but mostly this is a function of complexity. Modern hardware is just so complicated it would take a long time to completely document, and even longer to write a driver for.

replies(13): >>45067491 #>>45069282 #>>45069287 #>>45069349 #>>45069690 #>>45070345 #>>45071036 #>>45071086 #>>45072259 #>>45072391 #>>45073789 #>>45075476 #>>45081942 #
bbarnett ◴[] No.45069349[source]
Modern hardware is just so complicated it would take a long time to completely document, and even longer to write a driver for.

That's what's claimed. That's what people say, yet it's just an excuse. I've heard the same sort of excuse people have, after they write a massive codebase, then say "Oops, sorry, didn't get around to documenting it".

And no, hardware is not more difficult than software to document.

If the system is complex, there's more need to document, just as with a huge codebase. On their end, they have new employees to train up, and they have to manage testing. So any excuse that silicon vendors have to deal with such immense complexity? My violin plays for them.

replies(3): >>45069603 #>>45070341 #>>45073345 #
1. supermatt ◴[] No.45069603[source]
> If the system is complex, there's more need to document

It’s not first party documentation that’s the problem. The problem is that they don’t share that documentation, so in order to get documentation for an “unsupported” OS a 3rd party needs to reverse engineer it.