[OFFTOPIC] UDI stuff

Alex Buell (alex.buell@tahallah.demon.co.uk)
Wed, 7 Oct 1998 11:27:18 -0400 (EDT)

I've now read all the various emails (inc. RMS's missive), and also looked
at the draft UDI specs (admittedly, not very well detailed and looks as if
a committee was let loose upon it), and my response is: REJECTED, for the
below reasons:

1) Gives hardware vendors an excuse not to bother with open sources.
2) Inherent slowness over native implementations.
3) Doesn't fit in well with Linux's device driver architecture.
4) UDI specifications looks crap. We don't want snazzy graphics. We want
HARD details, and most lamentably, there have been none.

This of course is my personal opinion. However, proprietary UNIX operating
system developers are free to use UDI for their systems, but the NIMBY
prinicple applies here - NOT IN MY BACK YARD! There is no possibility
whatsoever I'll ever let a binary driver touch my system, let alone
download a UDI driver written for Windows NT. This one scares me the most.

Cheers,
Alex.

---
 /\_/\  Legalise cannabis now! 
( o.o ) Grow some cannabis today! 
 > ^ <  Peace, Love, Unity and Respect to all.


Check out http://www.tahallah.demon.co.uk


Linux lo-pc3035a 2.1.123 #28 Tue Sep 29 18:21:32 EDT 1998
One Intel Pentium 75+ processor, 66.36 total bogomips, 16M RAM
libc 5.4.44




-
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/