[lkml]   [1998]   [Sep]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Linux, UDI and SCO.
    In article <>,
    Gregory Maxwell <> wrote:

    >Lets assume that there will be more closed drivers because of UDI. (most
    >people agree on this)..

    If by more you mean `UDI drivers that can be used on Linux instead
    of no driver at all because the vendor refuses to release hardware
    specs', yes, I can agree with that. This doesn't stop the vendors
    who are releasing specs from continuing to release specs.

    >Because of this it will be harder for us to make native drivers, because
    >we wont be able get the specs and companies wont share them with us
    >because our drivers are open.. Compaines usually wont make native drivers
    >because the UDI will be 'good enough'.

    Which is good, because the UDI interface is likely to remain frozen
    and thus a driver that's written against a 2.0.x UDI interface will
    continue to work when the kernel is revved to 4.0. This is an
    unqualified Good Thing, because it means that device driver writers
    don't have to either (a) maintain their drivers forever to keep up
    with kernel interface drift or (b) hope that if they lose interest
    someone else will have enough interest to maintain the driver
    forever to keep up with kernel interface drift.

    Having binary-only drivers from companies that otherwise wouldn't
    release Linux drivers[1] is a pretty small price to pay for this.

    david parsons \bi/ [1: And 8-10 million seats is a pretty good reason
    \/ to release specs.]

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:44    [W:0.027 / U:1.536 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site