Re: Kernel Version specific vendor override possibilities needed - Revert and provide osi=linux or provide a replacement

[Alexey Starikovskiy <aystarik@gmail.com>]

Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 08:51:32AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
>
>   
>> It would be much better if we define feature-specific OSI() strings
>> that have well defined meanings for each place where Lenovo has to do
>> something different than What Happens With Windows --- especially for
>> stuff which is generic, since all laptop manufactuers need to
>> interoperate with whatever cr*p Windows ship.  At the end of the day,
>> since Intel was originally too lazy to ship an ACPI conformance test
>> suite, like it or not, Windows *has* become the APCI conformance test
>> suite, and all laptop manufacturers (at least for today) must bow to
>> the might and power which is the market share of Microsoft.
>>     
>
> My concern with this is that until we know where we deviate from the 
> Windows behaviour, we don't know what strings we'd need to provide. And 
> once we *do* know where we deviate, we should fix that deviation rather 
> than provide an identifying string.
>
>   
How about WMI?
Do you think that there will be some point in the future,
 when we could claim that our WMI implementation is the
same as Windows + HW manufacturer private driver?

Regards,
Alex.