lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Oct]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [Off Topic Conspiracy Theories] RE: UDI and Free(tm) Software
Date
On Tue, 06 Oct 1998, Kevin Quick wrote:
>For those more interested in the point, the above advantages come from
>having explicit regions and region interfaces within UDI and I'd be
>glad to explain further (here or individually).
>
>Will this catch everything that kernel-mode code can do? No.
>Will this stop people (any people) from writing bad drivers? No.
>Does it make it easier to know how to write a driver? Yes.
>Does it make it easier to apply validation/certification? Yes.

>Does it separate the driver from the OS to allow the OS to
> apply explicit managment to the driver if written that way? Yes.

Could you explain this last capability a bit further, please?


>One perspective that hasn't been discussed is that UDI may *force* hardware
>vendors to write better drivers... if they don't someone else will (at

No need. You can just specify in the specification that in order to obtain
certification for a UDI conformant device, hardware vendor must either provide
an open source driver or provide hardware specs for the device in question such
that someone else can write an open source driver instead.

>better drivers). Isn't that already how the game is played already
>except that with UDI its more of a "winner take all" situation? Since

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but the game should be played such that all sides
win.

The deal is about drivers, drivers for all parties. All parties have produced
or have been involved in producing a number of drivers for various hardware
devices. Some of these have been implemented on all platforms, some in a
smaller number of platforms.

Right now, everybody is producing their own drivers, duplicating the work of
others. A possible improvement on the situation is such that everybody works
together on drivers, and of course everybody benefits from produced drivers. As
equal, all parties must be able to produce an UDI conforming driver if there
is a UDI conforming device out there that isn't supported in a UDI conforming
environment.

Everybody has its own peculiarities, and open source's is that it's free. Since
UDI project members count on open source community to help in the effort, it
would be fair if this peculiarity is taken into account.

>winning is likely to be based on stability, performance, and features,
>there's every reason for a Linux developer to expect that they can
>"win".

I would, and I'm quite certain that a number of Linux developers would also,
enjoy such a deal. It's always good to keep a good competitive spirit.

Andrej

--
Andrej Presern, andrejp@luz.fe.uni-lj.si

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:44    [W:0.091 / U:0.488 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site