lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Sep]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Linux, UDI and SCO.
Date
In article <linux.kernel.Pine.LNX.3.96.980920124541.3321I-100000@z.ml.org>,
Gregory Maxwell <linker@z.ml.org> 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 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