> In message <199809201119.MAA06952@killala.koala.ie>, Simon Kenyon writes:
> +-----
> | one implication of UDI that i think people are missing is that if it takes off
> | we have a situation where certain internal interfaces would be frozen, with no
> | realistic chance of them being changed other that by the "standards" people.
> | this would leave Linux at a severe disadvantage, because one of the beauties
> | of linux is that it can evolve without asking anyone's permission.
> +--->8
>
> But the commercial Unixes are at the same disadvantage: Sun can change
> DDI/DKI whenever necessary, etc. UDI should be considered a sort of
> "baseline", with native driver support used for performance or enhanced
> functionality, etc.
>
Lets assume that there will be more closed drivers because of UDI. (most
people agree on this)..
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
drivers.. We'll be stuck trying to reverse engineer the close UDIs, which
is not legal everywhere (in the US there are new copyright laws being
passed that put tough constraints on reverse eng... In other places you
can only reverse eng. for 'compatiblity' which binary only UDI driver
arguibly give you..)..
-
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/