![logic pro 10.4 stuck updating logic pro 10.4 stuck updating](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51S1IHX2M7L._AC_UL600_SR600,600_.jpg)
- #Logic pro 10.4 stuck updating drivers#
- #Logic pro 10.4 stuck updating driver#
- #Logic pro 10.4 stuck updating code#
- #Logic pro 10.4 stuck updating free#
#Logic pro 10.4 stuck updating driver#
They maintain the driver interface, and even for them, figuring out a stable one and sticking to it would be less of a pain than constantly changing it. It gets tedious, even for those of us with open source drivers, to constantly have to reimplement them against a new kernel interface.īesides, they don’t maintain the drivers, closed or open source.
#Logic pro 10.4 stuck updating drivers#
No, it encourages driver writers to keep their drivers current. Why don’t hardware manufacturers just release specs? It’s not like there is anything “innovative” going on in the NIC world! There are some driver interfaces complex enough that I can see they’re worth protecting (eg: a GPU), but honestly, most hardware manufacturers are deluding themselves if they think their devices are special enough to warrent keeping interface specs secret… There is also the flip side to this argument.
![logic pro 10.4 stuck updating logic pro 10.4 stuck updating](https://whylogicprorules.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Screenshot-2017-12-04-23.08.22.png)
The minute you throw interface stakes in the ground, you hamper this evolutionary model of development. Linux doesn’t operate on the principle of “Solaris does it, so it must be good.” It operates on Darwinian principles - “this has proven to be better in practice”. If there was actual innovation in the driver interface, the frequent breakage would make sense, but there isn’t, and so it doesn’t.Ĭompare the differences between the driver APIs in Linux 2.4 and 2.6 and tell me that they didn’t need to change. No matter how you slice it, the Linux folks would rather have OSS drivers than closed ones, and not just for ideological reasons. The Linux folks are just as capable of doing that, but they’ve been hampered by having to reverse-engineer the 3D drivers first.
#Logic pro 10.4 stuck updating code#
NVIDIA shares its driver source code with Microsoft and Apple, which has allowed them to modify the 3D drivers to suit their compositing desktop. The Linux folks are having a very hard time creating a compositing desktop because they don’t have the source code to the OpenGL drivers. Ergo, supporting a stable driver interface just results in more work for them.Ĭonsider all the XGL-related brouhaha. Closed-source drivers are an enormous PITA for them to maintain.
![logic pro 10.4 stuck updating logic pro 10.4 stuck updating](https://support.apple.com/library/content/dam/edam/applecare/images/en_US/proapps/logic/logic-pro-x-10-3-1-preferences-audio-devices.png)
The issue here isn’t supporting drivers, it is supporting a stable driver interface.Ī stable driver interface encourages closed-source drivers.
#Logic pro 10.4 stuck updating free#
Linux has not acquired so much free drivers by supporting closed ones you know.ĭon’t know what it comes down to, but it’s definitely not this. Why ? They don’t do binary modules, so I would like to understand why they should find a solution to a problem that is not theirs. If they weren’t ideologically opposed to binary modules, they’d have already found a good solution by now. There are a multitude of much harder problems that have been solved in the kernel besides this one. See the supidity of your argument ? This one is contradictory and is as valid as yours. simply aren’t interested.īut that’s no excuse for the ISV devs to just throw up their hands and say “no way”. They said they support free drivers, but ISV and co. The kernel is Free Software, nothing prevents a coalition of ISV to provide a binary ABI and supporting it.īut that’s no excuse for the kernel devs to just throw up their hands and say “no way” ISVs have offered to come up with a solution for creating a binary ABI and supporting it. Classic examples include search success in a complex nested search, in which the goto is used for the non-exception case and the fall through is the exception case…) (BTW, the debate predates C, and the issues aren’t about lack of exception handling. In the simplest form, the forward goto that jumps out of a deeply nested set of control structures to a cleanup case at the end of the routine is almost always more readable than trying to structure the code to avoid using gotos at all. So he wrote a paper declaring goto must go.īut he overshot the mark, and Knuth pointed out that what Dykstra was really arguing against was those gotos that reduced the structure and readability of a program, but that there are clearly cases in which a goto improves the structure and readability. Inevitably in these programs, goto was used in place of structure. The upshot is that Dykstra found a lot of bad programs which were hard to follow because they had no structure. Dykstra’s “Goto considered harmful” paper and Knuth’s response should be required reading for every programmer. It’s okay so long as you don’t use it to control the algorithmic flow. It’s basically one of the very few clean(-ish) ways of doing error handling in C. However if you use goto to manage your error handling you’ll have If (! fwrite (buffer, BUFF_SIZE, 1, fout) Because C has no exception handling system, it’s common enough to use goto to jump to a certain code block when an error occurs so you can clean up.