Nonsense. Publish the interfaces and let timid hardware vendors
write binary drivers to those interfaces, and eventually they'll
realize that letting developers see the programming information
won't hurt them. What I want is for vendors to feel comfortable
selling hardware to the Linux marketplace, and if this means that
they have third-party binary only drivers for a while, that is
*not* a cost.
>> It is easy for you to say we shouldn't support such hardware.
>
>This is what we SHOULD DO ! REALLY ! NOT support such hardware... If we could
>not develop driver without signing NDA, that is. Doing otherwise will kill
>Linux eventually.
Binary third-party drivers haven't killed Windows yet; all they do
is create extra work for the hardware vendors, who, in the fullness
of time, will realize that the Open(tm) Source(tm) fanatics actually
are technically competent and can write device drivers.
>This is possible harm but this is by far MUCH LESS harm then possible
>corruption of Linux. Open linux-kernel archives and take a look on discussion
>about UDI -- there are was a lot of [..]
Black-helicopter style conspiracy theories.
>What about P-n-P: this is DEFINITELY not kernel task. This is belond to
>userspace. If current version of tools is not clear -- change tools. Do not
>pullute kernel with such crap as P-n-P ...
Nonsense; operating systems are supposed to manage resources. Card
interfaces are resources.
____
david parsons \bi/ Who is actually working on putting a UDI interface into
\/ 2.0.28 now. Ugh. I hate kernel hacking.
-
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/