lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Sep]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: Open letter to the UDI folks?
Theodore Y. Ts'o writes:
> 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

No, freeware. If Linus decides to accept UDI as a part of the core
Linux kernel then presumably the implementation that went into the
kernel would be GPL as would be the rest of the kernel but that
wouldn't change the freeware status of the Intel implementation.


> 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 covered the misinterpretation chain (me->press->Terry) in a previous
email. You are basically correct here. You would want to develop a
UDI driver if:
a) you wanted to (for personal or community use e.g. Linux)
b) someone paid you to

A native driver might be better or easier as long as you didn't care
to ever run that device in another OS.

>
> 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.

And neither Project UDI nor Intel is attempting to dictate Linux
volunteer developer activities. Again see the previous email which
explains the situation wherein Project UDI exists independently but
cooperatively with both Linux and the other developer communities.

>
> 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.)
>
> 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

I agree.

-Kevin

--
________________________________________________________________________
Kevin Quick Interphase Corporation Engineering Dallas, Texas
kquick@iphase.com http://www.iphase.com 214.654.5173
-
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. Advertise on this site