BK> Another question is, do the quotes reflect *his* motivations, or the
BK> motivations of the UDI folks for whom he must speak? He may well not agree
BK> with the official UDI "party line".
BK> If so, it occurs to me that he's in a position to help keep UDI from
BK> becoming our Achilles heel....
BK> (As for who speaks for Linux: I'd like to see Linus, Alan Cox (to balance
BK> each other :), and at least one person from each major distribution (Red
BK> Hat, Caldera, Debian, S.u.S.E., etc.). And RMS as a sort of executive
BK> advisor to insure that we don't sell our souls, although I don't think it's
BK> a good idea to have him be a spokesman: he seems to forget that social
BK> compromise doesn't necessarily mean ideological compromise.)
Problem is following: biggest possible harm from UDI is NOT even from UDI folks
by itself. The biggest threat is from hardware manufacturers. Without UDI we
could demand specs (or open-source drivers) from them since constant change
in Linux Kernel API means that it's not possible in most cases to use binary
driver written for Linux 1.2 in Linux 2.0 or written for Linux 2.0 in Linux 2.2
(and sometimes even not possible to use driver for 2.0.34 in 2.0.35!). UDI
will change this (and it's not bad thing by itself). Unfortunatelly this will
means that manufacturers could just write UDI driver (buggy -- "Unix is
mandatory; we do not have enough resources to make deep testing of drivers for
mandatory OS") instead of publishing specs ("You does not need our specs: you
have our UDI driver").
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/