[lkml]   [1998]   [Sep]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Open letter to the UDI folks?
       Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 23:22:46 -0500
    From: Terry L Ridder <>

    If we take Mr. Kevin Quick's statements as they are stated in the
    article it would seem clear what they want. The reference platform
    will be released as "freeware" ( I am assume GNU GPL since it would have
    ti link with the kernel. ) to the Linux Community, and the Linux
    Community is to undertake the "daunting" task of writing all those UDI
    device drivers. Once we have written them the commercial OS vendors and
    peripheral vendors will use our work as a "basis" for their work.

    Yes, but that's insane. Why would any Linux developer choose to do so?
    I might write a UDI driver if someone paid me enough money to do so, but
    to do so for free? Why? Especially when a native driver will probably
    work better, and probably be easier to write.

    I do not see it as harmless. If the Linux Community "buys" into
    Project UDI without getting I2O opened up, we are dealing with the
    same participants. Using the analogy that Alan Cox used, it is hard
    to shake the right hand of Project UDI when the left hand is on the
    binary-only sword of I2O.

    I see it as harmless because if you are right about the UDI Project, it
    will simply never fly. The Linux Community is a volunteer community,
    and as such, no one can dictate to our various volunteer developers to
    suddenly start developing all of these UDI drivers for free. It simply
    isn't going to happen.

    The I2O argument is a red herring. C'mon! There are lots of Industry
    Consoritums floating around. All of the I2O and UDI participants are
    also members of lots of other organizations: the IETF, the POSIX working
    groups, OSF, PCMCIA, QIC, etc. Does this mean that just because the
    participants of the I2O are also members of the IETF, we shouldn't use
    any IETF standard, like TCP/IP? This is pretty ridiculous on the face
    of it. BTW, there's yet another hardware standard of most of these
    organizations minus Intel, trying to develop a PCI follow-on that isn't
    dominated by Intel. (So there's no guarantee that I2O will even win

    We will help provided you remove your other hand from the
    binary-only sword of I2O. Please kindly show us two open hands.

    We can't even really say this, because we can't force developers to
    develop under UDI. Hence, we can't promise to help. That's why a lot
    of the comments about the UDI proposal simply don't make any sense.

    - Ted

    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:0.022 / U:9.944 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site