Messages in this thread | | | From | "Khimenko Victor" <> | Date | Sat, 19 Sep 1998 23:44:10 +0400 (MSD) | Subject | Re: Linux, UDI and SCO. |
| |
In <199809191843.OAA29220@hilfy.ece.cmu.edu> Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH (allbery@kf8nh.apk.net) wrote: BK> In message <ADf9_0s8NK@khim.mccme.ru>, "Khimenko Victor" writes: BK> +----- | SW>> Linux users are an increasing purchasing block. A good binary UDI interfa BK> | ce | SW>> will expose more vendors and customers to the True Way. If a vendor makes | SW>> a mess of it, we can either do it ourselves (no worse off then we are now) | SW>> or use the increasingly viable options of spending our money elsewhere. BK> | BK> | Times are changing :-(( Only few years ago most PC hardware was compatible on +--->>8
BK> Indeed they are: consider that more hardware vendors are opening up *now* BK> than before. This constitutes a counter-trend to the one you see.
BK> BTW, you assume that while M$ is putatively paying for hardware vendors to BK> write buggy UDI drivers, Sun and SCO, et al. are *not* paying for non-buggy BK> drivers or the specs to write same. That seems rather unlikely unless you BK> assume the game is in fact already over --- and the flip side of UDI is that BK> if SCO or Sun gets or writes a non-buggy UDI driver, it will work on a BK> UDI-compliant Linux.
Remeber Windows 3.1beta ? Binary-Only driver could be buggy under Linux and not buggy under Solaris or SCO...
- 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/
| |