Re: Linux, UDI and SCO.

Khimenko Victor (khim@sch57.msk.ru)
Sat, 19 Sep 1998 23:43:25 +0400 (MSD)


In <199809191838.OAA29205@hilfy.ece.cmu.edu> Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH (allbery@kf8nh.apk.net) wrote:
BK> In message <ABmt-0s8NK@khim.mccme.ru>, "Khimenko Victor" writes:
BK> +-----
BK> | In <199809191621.MAA28669@hilfy.ece.cmu.edu> Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH (allber
BK> | y@kf8nh.apk.net) wrote:
| BK>> In message <AB4Sz0sO54@khim.mccme.ru>, "Khimenko Victor" writes:
| BK>> | Problem is following: biggest possible harm from UDI is NOT even from U
BK> | DI fol
| BK>> | ks
| BK>> | by itself. The biggest threat is from hardware manufacturers. Without U
BK> | DI we
BK> |
| BK>> If we require that UDI drivers be GPLed then your worst case cannot happe
BK> | n
| BK>> because such vendors' UDI drivers will not be usable with Linux.
BK> |
BK> | Not GPL'ed. LGPL'ed. Since drivers must be usable for HP-UX, Solaris, SCO (an
BK> | d
BK> | even for M$ Windows if M$ will use UDI layer :-)
+--->>8

BK> But do we really want the proprietary folks mooching off our hard work and
BK> returning nothing? We do not want them to kill free software, but by the
BK> same token we don't want them to be leeches; free software isn't so much a
BK> socialism as an economic system where labor and services are the medium of
BK> exchange, and so far the UDI folks propose not to "pay" for what they take.

Of course I'm talk only about new drivers written by hardware manufacturers :-)
They are interested in both Linux and HP-UX, SCO, Solaris etc. support ...
Drivers written by Linux community without help from hardware manufacturers
could be keepd under GPL... May be they are could be released under LGPL as
well but of course UDI must find something to "pay" for this drivers before :-))

| BK>> Do you worry about the black helicopters as well?
BK> |
BK> | Hm. I'm could not understood your sentence. I'm seen "Black Shark" few times
BK> | but since I'm could do nothing about it I'm not bother...
+--->>8

BK> I didn't check your domain until after I wrote that, sorry. It's something
BK> of a US-specific joke/comment; from your domain I'd guess that you've seen
BK> worse and there was no joking about it. :-/

Hm. Really no. I'm still not seen black helicoters IN ACTION -- only tanks :-))

BK> | You misunderstood me. UDI is not related to M$ as of yet (I hope at least).
BK> | But UDI existence could GREATLY simplyify Linux destroing task for M$. And
+--->>8

BK> Not really, since if it did it would simultaneously make commercial Unix
BK> stronger --- unless it involved killing both at once, which is irrelevant to
BK> UDI because nobody's going to drop their proprietary driver interfaces while
BK> adding UDI. (That would be suicidal, because older third party drivers
BK> would likely not be made available in a UDI version.)

Computer world is fluidal :-(( The only thing you need is UDI binary-only
driver for few essentional parts of hardware. That's all. Something like
I2O but needed for "new genaration" of all and every computer systems...

-
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/