RE: UDI and Free(tm) Software
Terry L Ridder (terrylr@tbcnet.com)
Tue, 06 Oct 1998 03:03:47 -0500
David Parsons wrote:
>
> Terry L Ridder wrote:
> >
> > david parsons wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <linux.kernel.Pine.LNX.3.96.981005175402.18A-100000@z.ml.org>,
> > > Gregory Maxwell <linker@z.ml.org> wrote:
> > > >On Mon, 5 Oct 1998, Bill Moshier wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> 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.
> > >
> > > Writing to a published interface does NOT make a driver cheezy.
> > > Instead it makes it easier to build a good driver, because you're
> > > not constantly futzing with the driver to account for interface
> > > drift, and you can instead spend this energy making the driver
> > > better.
> >
> > Just because a UDI driver is written against the UDI specification
> > does not imply that it is either a "good" or "bad" driver. It only
> > means that it meets the UDI specification. There is nothing in the UDI
> > specification that says either explictly or implicitly that a UDI
> > driver will in fact work.
>
> You realize, of course, that you're speaking absolute nonsense. Why
> in the name of g-d would any commercial hardware vendor deliberately
> write device drivers that _don't_ work??
Where did I say anything like what you are implying?
Concerning writing device drivers which do not work, when was the last
time
you loaded Windows NT 4.0 on either an Intel or Alpha box?
As to why companies ship hardware with buggy/non-working drivers
you would have to ask them, my gut feeling is MONEY. They sold the
hardware.
>
> > Concerning making the driver better you are assuming that
> > you have the source code which may or may not be the case.
>
> No I'm not. I'm assuming that the hardware vendor can spend the
> resources to make the device driver; whether or not they make
> the (sensible, since they're a hardware company) decision to dump
> the source code out to the world or not is irrelevant to my
> point.
Reread your original statement concerning "making the driver better".
I do notice that you totally ignored the section on the UDI
specification
not being written in stone.
>
> > You need to consider also that many of the same companies which are
> > backing Project UDI are also backing I2O.
>
> And many of them support IETF. Quick, better switch to Arcnet
> before the black vans find where we're hiding!
I am sure that many do support IETF. Their support of IETF is not the
issue.
Their support of Project UDI and I2O is the issue which again you have
choosen
to ignore.
>
> david parsons
--
Terry L. Ridder
Blue Danube Software (Blaue Donau Software)
"We do not write software, we compose it."
entertaining angels
by the light of my computer screen
24-7 you wait for me
entertaining angels
while the night becomes history
host of heaven, sing over me
==Entertaining Angels==Newsboys
-
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/