lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Sep]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Linux, UDI and SCO.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
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 <groudier@club-internet.fr>
> Cc: dhollist@Iphase.COM, hpa@transmeta.com, linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
> 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 dhollist@iphase.com
> Software Engineer Dallas, TX
> http://www.public.asu.edu/~dhollist
>
> -
> 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/
>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv
iQEVAwUBNgmuKD7msCGEppcbAQFLcwgAwStrq4JsfrI8LFkfoYDjhAi3n3U7vtjs
Tf55R5b1vxDU8LktYX7y7F85OOi5kB6lvCTRJdhLn/tFkaTQbPkeSXmuvTU8tc19
6duaC3yI9f6npNf47AaO3gf/1pFWIunsda9xtK+znXZQpbIxtoSYPB05UVrhWXKH
cqY6i9Ye36+ZBaFs5N4y3mX8kUmpYa6Y/7VQe3CubQ5ITJqi/l7R7Fnwv2Njd8SH
AVwdiuf29nIgHUmICpwDBkcWiT50d0/Ek608GGThOA+pKa/KTFpbWCa42TWTXdMq
mjjSeZpXRmlIBR5kXjBA5+/wts69FGt/tclLqxtRxJtdqecFUKqJ8A==
=jkGY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-
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]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site