Re: Linux, UDI and SCO.

Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH (allbery@kf8nh.apk.net)
Sun, 20 Sep 1998 13:03:25 -0300

In message <Pine.LNX.3.96.980920124541.3321I-100000@z.ml.org>, Gregory
Maxwell
writes:
+-----
| Because of this it will be harder for us to make native drivers, because
| we wont be able get the specs and companies wont share them with us
| because our drivers are open.. Compaines usually wont make native drivers
| because the UDI will be 'good enough'.
|
| Now, you say that the commercial unixes will be at the same
| disadvantage... Not so. They are happy to release binary only native
| drivers. They can buy the source to the UDI drivers and make good native
+--->8

They can't get the specs either. The hardware folks roll over for
Microsoft; by and large, they don't for Sun or SCO. And if it comes to Sun
forking out $$$ for specs for the latest GeeWhizzo SCSI controller and pizza
maker or using the binary UDI driver, they're quite likely to do the latter
--- especially when the same decision must be made for every new piece of
hardware that appears. The original reason for UDI was to try to reduce
that cost by spreading it over all the Unix vendors, so it's clear that this
*is* an issue for them.

And the whole binary-drivers issue is in direct contradiction to Kevin
Quick's comments about how *we* are supposed to write UDI drivers for the
commercial folks.... <URL:http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/1998/37/ns-5501.html>

-- 
brandon s. allbery	[os/2][linux][solaris][japh]	 allbery@kf8nh.apk.net
system administrator	     [WAY too many hats]	   allbery@ece.cmu.edu
electrical and computer engineering					 KF8NH
carnegie mellon university






-
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/