Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Wed, 23 Sep 1998 19:27:50 -0700 (PDT) | | From | David Lang <> | | Subject | Re: 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/
|  |