Re: Open letter to the UDI folks?
Kevin Quick (kquick@iphase.com)
Thu, 24 Sep 1998 14:47:22 -0500 (CDT)
Terry L Ridder writes:
> Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> >
> >
> > The I2O argument is a red herring. C'mon! There are lots of Industry
> > Consoritums floating around. All of the I2O and UDI participants are
> > also members of lots of other organizations: the IETF, the POSIX working
> > groups, OSF, PCMCIA, QIC, etc. Does this mean that just because the
> > participants of the I2O are also members of the IETF, we shouldn't use
> > any IETF standard, like TCP/IP? This is pretty ridiculous on the face
> > of it. BTW, there's yet another hardware standard of most of these
> > organizations minus Intel, trying to develop a PCI follow-on that isn't
> > dominated by Intel. (So there's no guarantee that I2O will even win
> > out.)
>
> I disagree, UDI and I2O are tightly coupled issues. Please refer to the
> Project UDI Web Page at http://stage.sco.com/udi/i2o.html .
I think you misinterpreted the web page. We posted an I2O perspective
to our web page because people ask us about the difference a lot.
However, in the past I2O and UDI have been completely separate and
distinct. Intel's involvement will undoubtably change that, but UDI
cannot provide you with the keys to the I2O kingdom.
-Kevin
--
________________________________________________________________________
Kevin Quick Interphase Corporation Engineering Dallas, Texas
kquick@iphase.com http://www.iphase.com 214.654.5173
-
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/