lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Oct]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [Off Topic Conspiracy Theories] RE: UDI and Free(tm) Software
On Tue, 6 Oct 1998, 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??

Substitute 'works poorly' or 'is unstable' for 'not working' and you
wind up with the Windows driver model. Sure he's exagerating, but not
by much. Hardware manufactures deliberately write drivers that are
poor or unstable or just plain useless, but they do write them. Why?
Because they have to make the driver. Just because the manufacturer
makes a driver doesn't mean that it is good.

The main trust of an argument against UDI is that the stability of any
operating system is only as good as the drivers. How many times has
Windows crashed on you? How many of those crashes were because of
driver problems? I have wWindows crash all the time but I don't know
if it's a driver problem or not... there's just no way to tell.

The point he is trying to make (and I'm not saying that I agree or
disagree) is that if Linux starts using UDI drivers we lose stability.

Let's discuss that please.

Chris




-
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:0.132 / U:0.224 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site