> Followup to: <m0zL8XQ-000aQwC@the-village.bc.nu>
> By author: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox)
> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> >
> > > The users win if Unix wins. If this means that some vendors release
> > > proprietary drivers for Linux and end up eating support costs for the
> > > rest of their life, it's a lot better than if those vendors encourage
> > > their clients to use Windows NT, because it's supported.
> >
> > If your interest is "trash microsoft" then maybe. If your interest is creating
> > a world with a truely free software base its a different matter
> >
>
> Yes, although you have to win your battles before you can win the war.
> I suspect that *at the moment*, the biggest battle is closed standards
> (spearheaded by Micro$oft) versus open standards (which Unix is slowly
> migrating towards.) Open standards is a (necessary but not
> sufficient) precondition for free software, and the more power M$ gets
> the more in danger they are (look at I2O, for example -- the I2O
> consortium is widely claimed to be effectively controlled by Intel and
> Microsoft, although I have no idea to what extent that really is.)
It is quite fine that I2O is not free because I2O is shit.
A PCI controller using a processor like (as) the 860 will give same
service, same bad latency and if you use 2 you will have 2x860 or similar
instead of one.
Imagine your I2O black box with its single 860 processor having to deal
with several different hardware controllers and having to deal with mixed
binary I2O drivers that have been tuned and tested separately, having tons
of bugs since only tested using M$ software, etc ..., etc ...
I have had a look into UDI books. This looks to me as the result on N
years of brain masturbation from 'has been' people that enjoy turning
simple things into complex ones since this makes feel them intelligent.
Let me doubt that a driver blindly written using these specs will work
without change on any architecture and be optimal enough not to be
ridiculous. All the UDI kernel interface reinvention will make debugging
a pain. What about the overhead in code lines and CPU cycles due UDI
stuff ?
It seems that drivers are the weekness of some non M$ commercial O/Ses.
Any proposal that may give them better drivers or new drivers is just
busyness for them and it seems to me normal they encourage such proposal.
I am not against UDI. In fact I don't care of such proposal. I want an
O/S that fits my needs, and for now I have one that did'nt need UDI in
order to be so.
So, I would be glad that people that flood the kernel list with UDI stuff
create a separate list for UDI discussion (you may include I2O if you
want) to which I will obviously _not_ subscribe.
Thanks in advance.
About SCO, I had one 4 years ago. ten minutes after having installed
linux-0.99 from Yyydrasil, I have deleted the SCO partition from
my hard disk.
Just my humble opinion. ;-)
Regards,
Gerard.
-
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/