[lkml]   [1998]   [Sep]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Linux, UDI and SCO.

    one misunderstanding that either I have or many others have.

    If I understand UDI, the purpose is that there would be a x86 driver, a
    sparc driver, an alpha driver NOT a win95 driver, win98 driver winNT
    driver, liux driver, solaris driver, sco driver, etc.

    One driver with a layer in each OS that lets it use the driver for that
    hardware (platform, card combo)

    David Lang

    On Wed, 23 Sep 1998, David Hollister wrote:

    > Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 09:43:25 -0600 (MST)
    > From: David Hollister <dhollist@Iphase.COM>
    > To: Gerard Roudier <>
    > Cc: dhollist@Iphase.COM,,
    > Subject: Re: Linux, UDI and SCO.
    > Gerard Roudier says:
    > >
    > > On the other hand, UDI model may fit very well some O/S design but may
    > > need bunches of bad glue code for some other O/S. A standard must be
    > > _fair_ or really try to be so. My reading of UDI models let me think it is
    > > not. BTW, the fact that SCO, Solaris and HP-UX already have UDI
    > > environments tells me suspicious things about the fairness of UDI specs.
    > It boils down to this. If UDI doesn't work well, it won't be used. Nobody
    > would accept it. If it does, it will be accepted. What vendor will want to
    > release UDI drivers (even if it is easier) if the performance sucks? Let's
    > say, for example, that UDI works great for Solaris and sucks for Linux. Nobody
    > will want to use a Linux UDI driver. It behooves the developers (and their
    > respective companies) to make sure that doesn't happen.
    > > Look at applications developped under some rapid development tools. They
    > > are generally not maintainable and so have to be rewritten each time you
    > > want to add some feature.
    > >
    > > If it was possible to develop rapidly software, M$ would'nt have hired
    > > 10,000 people for their R&D department.
    > Nobody claims developing an entire UDI driver would be a rapid task. What I
    > said (or alluded to) was that it aids in future development of new products
    > after the framework is in place.
    > > OS differences is a good thing. That's the resulted differentiation that
    > > makes Linux better due to BSD projects and vice-versa.
    > I agree that differences are good. No argument there. Again, if developing
    > a UDI driver for a certain OS requires too many compromises, it won't fly.
    > > PS: Let me know how many UDI drivers are currently shipped with commercial
    > > O/Ses and at which URL(s) I can grab the source code.
    > UDI is still in the prototyping stage, but that should be common knowledge
    > by now.
    > --
    > David Hollister Interphase Corporation
    > Software Engineer Dallas, TX
    > -
    > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    > the body of a message to
    > Please read the FAQ at

    Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
    Charset: noconv

    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    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:0.031 / U:9.948 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site