lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Sep]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Open letter to the UDI folks?
Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
>
> Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 23:22:46 -0500
> From: Terry L Ridder <terrylr@tbcnet.com>
>
> 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 did not say that their statements made any sense. ;-)

As to why, I can only speculate. One reason that does come to mind
would be solely to compare native driver vs. UDI driver.

I would guess that Project UDI figures that we would do it anyway.
As to why they would think that I have no idea.

Concerning native drivers I would tend to agree.

>
> 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.

That thought has crossed my mind. I personally would hope that everyone
understands the implications of both Project UDI and Intel's statements.

I totally agree that we can not dictate to the various volunteers
to go off and start writing UDI drivers. I think Project UDI and Intel
just assume that we will begin to write UDI device drivers. As to why
they
would think that I do not have the slightess idea.

>
> 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
> out.)

I disagree, UDI and I2O are tightly coupled issues. Please refer to the
Project UDI Web Page at http://stage.sco.com/udi/i2o.html .

I have read about the new PCI follow-on.

>
> 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.

I think we can to some extent. If they do not open up I2O they will
clearly understand that the Linux Community will not even consider UDI.
With UDI and I2O tightly coupled I would tend to think that no Linux
device driver author is going to even consider UDI an option.
If I2O were to be opened up just as Project UDI is, the Linux
device driver author may at at least consider a UDI device driver.
Granted he/she may very well still reject it based on the performance
factors when compared to a native driver.

The bottomline in all this is:

Project UDI and Intel need the Linux Community more than the Linux
Community needs them.

The thought just occurred to me that perhaps we need to talk with the
Apache folks and see how they worked out the agreement with IBM.
That is the only other similar case I am able to think of.

>
> - Ted

--
Terry L. Ridder
Blue Danube Software (Blaue Donau Software)
"We do not write software, we compose it."

entertaining angels
by the light of my computer screen
24-7 you wait for me
entertaining angels
while the night becomes history
host of heaven, sing over me
==Entertaining Angels==Newsboys

-
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:0.086 / U:0.032 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site