Re: [Off Topic Conspiracy Theories] RE: UDI and Free(tm) Software
Drago Goricanec (drago@king.otsd.ts.fujitsu.co.jp)
Wed, 07 Oct 1998 12:57:08 +0900
Chris Johnson <cmj@inline-design.com> writes:
cmj> Substitute 'works poorly' or 'is unstable' for 'not working' and you
cmj> wind up with the Windows driver model. Sure he's exagerating, but not
cmj> by much. Hardware manufactures deliberately write drivers that are
cmj> poor or unstable or just plain useless, but they do write them. Why?
cmj> Because they have to make the driver. Just because the manufacturer
cmj> makes a driver doesn't mean that it is good.
cmj>
cmj> The main trust of an argument against UDI is that the stability of any
cmj> operating system is only as good as the drivers. How many times has
cmj> Windows crashed on you? How many of those crashes were because of
cmj> driver problems? I have wWindows crash all the time but I don't know
cmj> if it's a driver problem or not... there's just no way to tell.
cmj>
cmj> The point he is trying to make (and I'm not saying that I agree or
cmj> disagree) is that if Linux starts using UDI drivers we lose stability.
What about security. If a binary only UDI driver is available, will I
risk my system's security by plugging it in to my Linux kernel?
cmj> Let's discuss that please.
And security too.
cmj> Chris
Drago
-
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/