lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Sep]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Linux, UDI and SCO.
On Sun, 20 Sep 1998, Jamie Lokier wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 19, 1998 at 12:18:20AM -0700, Gerhard Mack wrote:
> > I'm starting to wonder how many of you actual read the post from SCO.
> > Cross hardware platforms ? Were did it say Intel only ?
>
> Answers: customer support, company image.
hmmm
Intel has stake in x86, Merced And Alpha, I doubt most of the other
participents would agree to x86 platform only, the post seemed to indecate
multiplatifrm support in a single UDI driver, the demonstation was
multiplatform ?


> For free software, and a few of my favourite companies, unsupported
> platforms (and this means non-Intel UDI) go in a contrib directory or on
> someone else's web site. Niche users use the software, changes and
> fixes are fed back etc. All the things which are natural to the open
> development community.
>

> For all companies, this is a policy decision that has to be made.
> Most companies choose another approach.
>
> Even when porting is as trivial as a recompile, many companies will not
> do it.
>
> Even when the driver has been ported by a company employee or elsewhere,
> many companies will not release the port. Even if they _use_ the ported
> driver internally, it may not be released. This has been the case at
> several companies I have worked for.
>
> For many companies, the web site etc. is a customer support network, but
> it is also the shop front for the company. Only "officially supported"
> platforms are represented, and that means platforms for which the
> company has the hardware, resources to test the port, answer technical
> support questions etc.
>
> This will improve only as companies embrace the open development
> philosophy.
>
> It would be nice if this is what SCO intend by working with the Linux
> community.
>
> > I agree it can change the prospects of Linux, but why do we fear that?
> > According the announcement this was all cross platform. We should be
> > arguing this stuff on it's technical points not it's philosophical ones.
>
> The fears are mostly political, not technical. Some minor overheads due
> to network buffering style etc. -- I'm sure they can be worked out. But
> if hardware becomes more closed... well, roll on death to independent
> developers. What technical problems we are allowed to solve will be
> irrelevant to the wider community.

I doubt UDI will replece our drivers, products with native drivers will
most likely allways outpreform UDI, that will translate into sales, as
linux grows this will be even more of a facter.

UDI is simply a first step, better off with UDI then nothing then perhapse
they will learn. Atleast with UDI it will be a performance issue instead
of "this os sucks becuase I couln't use xx device". We can simple point to
the competition and say "look how much faster they are.. it's not our
fault"

IMO unless we do something really dunb like using UDI for everything it is
a good thing.

Gerhard

PS and I do agree that UDE proponents should push for open specs on I20
as the price of Linux involvement.

--
Gerhard Mack
irc-admin skyline.starchat.net

gmack@imag.net
InnerFIRE@starchat.net

As a computer I find your faith in technology amusing.



-
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:0.235 / U:0.208 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site