It boils down to this. If UDI doesn't work well, it won't be used. Nobody
would accept it. If it does, it will be accepted. What vendor will want to
release UDI drivers (even if it is easier) if the performance sucks? Let's
say, for example, that UDI works great for Solaris and sucks for Linux. Nobody
will want to use a Linux UDI driver. It behooves the developers (and their
respective companies) to make sure that doesn't happen.
> Look at applications developped under some rapid development tools. They
> are generally not maintainable and so have to be rewritten each time you
> want to add some feature.
>
> If it was possible to develop rapidly software, M$ would'nt have hired
> 10,000 people for their R&D department.
Nobody claims developing an entire UDI driver would be a rapid task. What I
said (or alluded to) was that it aids in future development of new products
after the framework is in place.
> OS differences is a good thing. That's the resulted differentiation that
> makes Linux better due to BSD projects and vice-versa.
I agree that differences are good. No argument there. Again, if developing
a UDI driver for a certain OS requires too many compromises, it won't fly.
> PS: Let me know how many UDI drivers are currently shipped with commercial
> O/Ses and at which URL(s) I can grab the source code.
UDI is still in the prototyping stage, but that should be common knowledge
by now.
--
David Hollister Interphase Corporation dhollist@iphase.com
Software Engineer Dallas, TX
http://www.public.asu.edu/~dhollist
-
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/