lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Sep]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: UDI discussion realities...
Date
"Mike A. Harris" <mharris@ican.net> writes:

> Drawing from the above, I conclude that Linux doesn't *need* UDI
> because in a few short years, there will only be one API worth
> supporting anyway - the Linux kernel API's.

Aside from the fact that we still have some way to go before you can put
Linux on some over-the-counter cheap PC hardware, and expect to
outperform a Sun E10K or Cray/SGI Origin2K,

There's also the possibility of other vendors to simply adopt Linux's
API - this works for source compatibility for Mach (unless my memory is
extremely rusty) and the Utah OSkit/Flux - probably others, too. In a
way, source compatibility is better than binary compatibility, because
it encourages source distribution.

<FUD>
But not for Intel et al., who'd like x86 binary compatibility, or people
from device driver companies, who'd like more job security.
</FUD> :-)

> Since Linux is multiplatform, we shall crush all OS vendors on [..]

Uhmm..right. Have you tried cutting down on your caffeine intake? :-)

~kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants

-
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    [W:0.045 / U:0.944 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site