In article <linux.kernel.200004072140.QAA13824@khijol.org>,
Ed Carp <erc@pobox.com> wrote:
>David S. Miller (davem@redhat.com) writes:
>
>> It's much like the "DDK like" thing SCO and others were pushing for
>> a Linux implementation of, the core incentive is the same, make binary
>> only drivers more feasible under Linux. This is why all of these
>> efforts tend to smell bad to me.
>
>It's all a trick so they can take, take, take from the Open Source community
>and not have to give anything back in return. We're being ripped off...
I think this is nonsense. People may have a desire to have a
uniform and consistant interface for reasons other than greed (and
certainly from a standpoint of keeping proprietary drivers
proprietary, it works out better to have the kernel vendor
constantly redoing the interfaces so anyone who's attempting to
track your binaries will have to figure out the interface of the
week (which your porting engineer has already dealt with for your
driver) before they can track your code.)
I'd love to see a standard published interface for network drivers
so I could put modern non-Becker drivers into my 2.0.28 kernels
without having to either spend several weeks porting and debugging
them or converting to Newer! Bigger! kernels so I can use ethernet
cards that postdate 1997.
____
david parsons \bi/ Thank goodness IDE is becoming a usable interface
\/ so I can stop supporting SCSI on my install floppies.
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 15 2000 - 21:00:11 EST