I think this is something this discussion has been seriously missing;
input from some of those who really will be deciding this:
- Linus Torvalds and other kernel developers (Alan's been involved a bit,
though).
- Distribution vendors (RedHat, Debian, SuSE, Slackware, Stampede, etc)
These are the people who will really choose what direction Linux goes in
on this one, just because what they do will shape what the end user
inevitably sees (the average end user is not someone who compiles their
own kernel; the end user is someone who goes to the store and buys a CD
from some distribution vendor; and those distribution vendors generally
follow the lead that Linus and Co. provide). I'm extremely interested in
hearing an official (or unofficial) point of view from them at this point.
Personally, I'm leaning toward the camp that has a problem with UDI; not
as a concept (interoperability is always a good thing), but because of the
problems it can potentially raise with giving vendors an excuse to only
develop a single Intel-based UDI driver, and not release source or specs,
locking out the other platforms that Linux operates on (even if the device
can technically be used on other architectures).
Lack of specs locks Linux out of the OS market in the long run, as more
and more drivers are developed under NDAs and sold commercially (which
mean they cannot be distributed with the kernel). While I agree with UDI
in spirit, I can't agree with the effect it will have on the hardware
vendor decision-making process.
-- -------------------. emarshal at logic.net .--------------------------------- Edward S. Marshall `-----------------------' http://www.logic.net/~emarshal/Linux labyrinth 2.1.117 #2 SMP Thu Aug 20 21:20:49 CDT 1998 i586 unknown 3:00pm up 7 days, 16:43, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
- 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/