Re: [OT] RE: UDI and Free Software
david parsons (o.r.c@p.e.l.l.p.o.r.t.l.a.n.d.o.r.u.s)
5 Oct 1998 22:09:09 -0700
In article <linux.kernel.Pine.LNX.3.96.981005175402.18A-100000@z.ml.org>,
Gregory Maxwell <linker@z.ml.org> wrote:
>On Mon, 5 Oct 1998, Bill Moshier wrote:
>
>> I fail to see it doing anything but strengthening the Linux architecture.
>> If we have UDI support in the kernel, it does not necessarily require
>> us to develop UDI modules, and it will potentially give Linux the
>> access to the latest hardware available, assuming that the various
>> vendors release UDI drivers for their hardware. If the various vendors
>> find that they have a problem providing the detailed support for their
>> board, it should encourage them to provide source code, or detailed
>> information for their hardware. In either case, I believe Linux wins.
>
>No Linux loses. Linux is becoming a very popular driver. Soon many vendors
>will notice a loss in sales if they provide no Linux drivers.
>
>UDI give them a way to throw a cheezy half-assed driver our way.
Writing to a published interface does NOT make a driver cheezy.
Instead it makes it easier to build a good driver, because you're
not constantly futzing with the driver to account for interface
drift, and you can instead spend this energy making the driver
better.
____
david parsons \bi/ And, as a bonus, you can continue to provide drivers
\/ for discontinued products without having to hire
someone to constantly update the damned things.
-
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/