Re: [Off Topic Conspiracy Theories] RE: UDI and Free(tm) Software

david parsons (o.r.c@p.e.l.l.p.o.r.t.l.a.n.d.o.r.u.s)
6 Oct 1998 11:29:28 -0700

In article <linux.kernel.Pine.LNX.4.00.9810070051010.553-100000@stoli.spirits.org.au>,
Nathan Hand <nathanh@chirp.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>On Tue, 6 Oct 1998, David Parsons wrote:
>
>> Terry L Ridder wrote:
>> >
>> > 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??
.
.
.

>For example ...

[tale of woe about a malfunctioning windows drivers deleted]

This brings up another (also off-topic, sorry) advantage of coding to
a UDI interface. If you can't get the vendors driver to work on your
system and they've coded to a UDI interface, it's a whole bunch easier
to take a source-available driver from another system and put it into
place to deal with the bugs.

____
david parsons \bi/ If Open Source(tm) is such a wonderful competitive
\/ advantage, why are so many people treating it as a
proprietary thing and refusing to even consider
competing in a standards-based market?

-
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/