> I fail to see it doing anything but strengthening the Linux architecture.
> If we have UDI support in the kernel, it does not necessarily require
> us to develop UDI modules, and it will potentially give Linux the
> access to the latest hardware available, assuming that the various
> vendors release UDI drivers for their hardware. If the various vendors
> find that they have a problem providing the detailed support for their
> board, it should encourage them to provide source code, or detailed
> information for their hardware. In either case, I believe Linux wins.
No Linux loses. Linux is becoming a very popular driver. Soon many vendors
will notice a loss in sales if they provide no Linux drivers.
UDI give them a way to throw a cheezy half-assed driver our way. Since we
will be much smaller then MS for a long time to come, who do you think
they will work hard to provide quality drivers for.
> It is highly unlikely that a large number of Windows users would ever
> use GNU/Linux drivers for their NT system, for most will only run the
> drivers supplied with their hardware, and never search out this type.
Perhaps manufactuors will include the UDI drivers written by Linux users
with their product. The Linux drivers are sometimes better then any of the
ones the manufactuor makes.
> Linux, regardless of the pressure being put on hardware vendors, always
> lags behind in availability of detailed information for the hardware.
No it doesn't. Some vendors are VERY Linux frendly. Linux supports alot of
hardware that NT doesn't (the reverse is also true I suppose).
Linux friendly vendors are rewarded with good drivers and improved sales.
(every piece of hardware in my systems comes from Linux friendly vendors)
> Beyond that, if the linux community really had an interest in using non-free
> drivers, we would have moved back over to M$, and just accepted the low
> performance, low reliability that Redmond provides.
No, If I got stuck with something where only a non-free driver existed I
might consider using it. It is a possibility.
> Ideally, the hardware vendors will come around. But I wouldn't hold
> my breath.
By supporting UDI you distroy the most signifiant shoehorn that shows them
the light of day. Now it's, "10 million people can't use your product,
because you dont provide specs".. With UDI it might be "1 million people
avoide your product because your UDI drivers suck".
Furthermore, with Binary only UDI the vendor can say "It's a bug in Linux,
not our driver" and piss people off at Linux.
> It should be encouraged, but not required. like taxes :)
I disagree, to be listed as UDI compilent the driver should include the
source at be provided at no additional charge (i.e. you can't sell a
product with windows drivers but charge for UDI ones)..
> I believe that putting Intel in that place of power is a *bad* move.
Yet you are willing to support UDI? :) UDI give big Unix vendors more
power.. I would dare to say that Intel is much nicer then Sun or Sco would
be if they managed to get half that big.
> As UDI moves forward, and as Intel works with the linux world, there
> should be pressure to release the I2O specifications to the freeware
> community.
Sputter spit.. FREEWARE? yuck. Let that word die please! It's Free
Software.. or if you must Open Source Software. I'm a bit partial to
Freedomware. :)
> > Copyright 1998 Richard Stallman
> > Verbatim copying and distribution is permitted in any medium
> > provided this notice is preserved.
Please tell me I'm not violating this copyright by responding with
snipage? :)
-
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/