lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Sep]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Linux, UDI and SCO.


On Sat, 19 Sep 1998, Francesco Chemolli wrote:

[snip]
> Then there are the linux-native drivers. There is no reason to drop them
> simply because there is _also_ UDI. So we get the native drivers and the
> vendor drivers to choose between. What's the problem with that? The only
> objection I can see is that some vendors may be less inclined to release
> specs saying "there's the UDI driver we already provide".
> But my guess is that such vendors would not release specs anyways, so it
> would just be the same for us...

No thats not the case. Many vendors have only release specs because of
thousands of Linux users yelling 'I cant use your hardware!'.. UDI takes
away that incentive entirely..


> So, the bottom line is, I can see no harm in it.

That seems short-sighted.

> They want to do an UDI
> interface? Let them do it, it will just be one more feature for us, it
> won't force us to do anything we don't want to, and won't cost us a bit.

We can't stop them. But we can chose not to include it.

> And seeing HW boxes with a "Works with Linux" sticker on them will give
> our community even more exposure than it has now.

Most hardware that is sold on shelves (except most win* hardware) works
great under Linux, often the Linux driver is better then it's win*
counterpart.. Yet these vendors dont put those stickers on their products
now.. What makes you think they will with UDI?


-
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    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans