> Drawing from the above, I conclude that Linux doesn't *need* UDI
> because in a few short years, there will only be one API worth
> supporting anyway - the Linux kernel API's.
Aside from the fact that we still have some way to go before you can put
Linux on some over-the-counter cheap PC hardware, and expect to
outperform a Sun E10K or Cray/SGI Origin2K,
There's also the possibility of other vendors to simply adopt Linux's
API - this works for source compatibility for Mach (unless my memory is
extremely rusty) and the Utah OSkit/Flux - probably others, too. In a
way, source compatibility is better than binary compatibility, because
it encourages source distribution.
<FUD>
But not for Intel et al., who'd like x86 binary compatibility, or people
from device driver companies, who'd like more job security.
</FUD> :-)
> Since Linux is multiplatform, we shall crush all OS vendors on [..]
Uhmm..right. Have you tried cutting down on your caffeine intake? :-)
~kzm
-- If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants- 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/