> Gerhard Mack wrote:
> >
> > The thing with it would be that we don't have to distribute them with the
> > kernel.
>
> While this may be true this could take us down the slippery slope of
> Motif, Qt, etc. Somehow I can not imagine an end-user downloading Linux
> only to discover that they need a UDI driver in order to even boot
> the system, which is available in binary format only, and cost actual
> money.
Any hardware maker fool enough to charge for drivers will end up getting
exactly what they deserve. (a lot of returned product)
> > Can you run proprietary programs on gpl operating systems?
>
> Running proprietary programs is a totally different issue.
> The point being discussed is concerning UDI device drivers.
>
> A bug in something like Applixware, WordPrefect, etc for Linux
> does not directly affect the ability to run Linux. A bug in a binary
> format
> only UDI device driver would.
But then it's no longer a Linux issue, the driver will fail on the other
operating systems as well, the blame will fall in the manufacturer where
it would belong.
Just a note: I am not ever wanting to see Linux drivers replaced with
UDI, native drivers are always preferable, at least this way the hardware
will work. It will then be a means of x card maker is faster then y
because y is too lame to release the specs, instead of people asking why
we don't support their favorite device.
Gerhard
[snip]
-- Gerhard Mack irc-admin skyline.starchat.net gmack@imag.net InnerFIRE@starchat.netAs a computer I find your faith in technology amusing.
- 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.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html