[Off Topic Conspiracy Theories] RE: UDI and Free(tm) Software
David Parsons (orc@pell.chi.il.us)
Tue, 6 Oct 1998 00:33:36 -0700 (PDT)
Terry L Ridder wrote:
>
> david parsons wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> Just because a UDI driver is written against the UDI specification
> does not imply that it is either a "good" or "bad" driver. It only
> means that it meets the UDI specification. There is nothing in the UDI
> specification that says either explictly or implicitly that a UDI
> driver will in fact work.
You realize, of course, that you're speaking absolute nonsense. Why
in the name of g-d would any commercial hardware vendor deliberately
write device drivers that _don't_ work??
> Concerning making the driver better you are assuming that
> you have the source code which may or may not be the case.
No I'm not. I'm assuming that the hardware vendor can spend the
resources to make the device driver; whether or not they make
the (sensible, since they're a hardware company) decision to dump
the source code out to the world or not is irrelevant to my
point.
> You need to consider also that many of the same companies which are
> backing Project UDI are also backing I2O.
And many of them support IETF. Quick, better switch to Arcnet
before the black vans find where we're hiding!
____
david parsons \bi/ I don't care if i2o is the recommended device
\/ interface of Ken Starr and the entire damned
band of traitors who are trying to overthrow
the US government. When Linux wins, i2o will
evolve or perish.
-
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/