lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Sep]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateWed, 23 Sep 1998 19:27:50 -0700 (PDT)
FromDavid Lang <>
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 12:44    [from the cache]
©2003-2008