Messages in this thread | | | From | Michal Jaegermann <> | Subject | Re: Linux, UDI and SCO. | Date | Sat, 19 Sep 1998 15:49:31 -0600 (MDT) |
| |
> Michal Jaegermann wrote: > > > > He found on a manufacturer page, no money - for a download, "NT driver" > > for his particular piece of a hardware. .......................................... > > Ooops! No chance even to try to boot anymore.
I posted a real life story about a hapless NT Alpha user who installed in a good faith a manufacturer provided binary-only driver for what he resonably thought was his system and destroyed it. From some responses I got in my email it looks like that I should have dotted all i's and crossed all t's. I thought that it was clear what I aimed at but apparently this was not always the case.
With a proliferation of binary-only UDI drivers for Linux, and growing portion of "just users" who do not know better, there is an extremely good chance that that story will become a "Linux story". I am also quite confident that such cases will be reported by trade rags as examples of "Unix/Linux is for propeller-heads only user-unfriendly immature system with a bad interface". A lack of competence of a driver packager will be not mentioned at all.
And one more thing to clarify. I do not have ideological reasons to be dead-against UDI drivers. But if we will jump into this situation headlong, without weighting all consequences and raising safeguards, we will be badly burned. All those who say "So what? We can write our own drivers anyway." I ask - from what specs if there will be no incentive to release them? If you are so confident then go ahead and write a device driver for at least one winmodem.
Michal
- 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/
| |