Re: Linux, UDI and SCO.

Khimenko Victor (khim@sch57.msk.ru)
Sat, 19 Sep 1998 22:17:15 +0400 (MSD)

In <199809191713.NAA06424@alcove.wittsend.com> Michael H. Warfield (mhw@wittsend.com) wrote:
MW> Khimenko Victor enscribed thusly:
>> 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").

MW> Then the response is the same as it every was... Then we will use
MW> someone elses board... Someone else supplied specs... Someone else has
MW> native drivers to which we have the source... Why should we use your
MW> crummy board and your buggy drivers when we have something better.

Since we are not geeks :-)) Since we are Joe Average's :-)) Since we do not
bothers :-)) The more Linux will go mainstream the more "Joe Average"'s will
use it and the lower will be per cent of "True Geeks" in Linux community who
understood why they are needed open-source drivers at all :-((

MW> In other words... Use market demand to force them just like we
MW> do now.

This will be more and more hard with time. Linux community already has quite
low per cent of "True Geeks" and this per cent will only lower with time...

MW> It may be a little tougher if they already have a UDI driver
MW> to answer back with but then we can hit them with: "Would you rather give
MW> us the specs and have a community supported open source driver to sell
MW> your board, or would you like to have everyone and their brother hammering
MW> you over your closed source, buggy, inefficient driver?"

Yes. It's possible. Now. But when (and if :-) Linux (with *BSD and others) will
have 50+ per cents of market most users will be "Joe Average"s who do not
interested in such obscure things at all :-(( They are will be happy with
binary-only drivers and "True Geeks" could be ingnored since they are has not
signifucant market share...

MW> I do agree that this may more be a ploy to leverage our body of
MW> drivers against the close source OS's but... Even if Linux supports UDI
MW> drivers, who say WE have to write ONLY to that spec? :-)

UDI has real benefits but make Linux more vulnerable to attack mentioned in
my previous letter. That's all. We must try to increase benefits and we must
try to decrese possible harm. That's all what we could do. And that what we
MUST do.

-
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/