[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


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:0.052 / U:8.544 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site