From: e...@thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond)
Subject: Open letter to the UDI folks?
Date: 1998/09/19
Message-ID: <19980919171721.A19895@thyrsus.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 392839285
Approved: g...@greenie.muc.de
Sender: muc.de!l-linux-kernel-owner
Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs
Newsgroups: muc.lists.linux-kernel
I'm thinking this business about UDI from SCO/Intel calls for a community
response -- basically, an open letter urging the consortium to include
OSD-conformant licensing of drivers as one of their conformance criteria.
Seems to me this is the kind of jawboning is precisely the sort of
thing we ought to be using my mainstream visibility for (current batch
of interviews upcoming: Upside, Fast Company, Le Monde, and the NY
Times business section).
I'm willing to draft that letter, and will invite signatories from the
LI Board and the kernel list. OTOH, if anyone else has a case that
they can do a better job, I will cheerfully defer to it.
I've looked for a contact address for the UDI people, but have yet to find
one. Anybody got a line?
--
<a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr">Eric S. Raymond</a>
The following is a Python RSA implementation. According to the US Government
posting these four lines makes me an international arms trafficker! Join me
in civil disobedience; add these lines of code to your .sig block to help get
this stupid and unconstitutional law changed.
============================================================================
from sys import*;from string import*;a=argv;[s,p,q]=filter(lambda x:x[:1]!=
'-',a);d='-d'in a;e,n=atol(p,16),atol(q,16);l=(len(q)+1)/2;o,inb=l-d,l-1+d
while s:s=stdin.read(inb);s and map(stdout.write,map(lambda i,b=pow(reduce(
lambda x,y:(x<<8L)+y,map(ord,s)),e,n):chr(b>>8*i&255),range(o-1,-1,-1)))
The direct use of physical force is so poor a solution to the problem of
limited resources that it is commonly employed only by small children and
great nations.
-- David Friedman
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: terr...@tbcnet.com (Terry L Ridder)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the UDI folks?
Date: 1998/09/20
Message-ID: <360530A8.5EBCD99E@tbcnet.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 393031715
Approved: g...@greenie.muc.de
Sender: muc.de!l-linux-kernel-owner
References: <19980919171721.A19895@thyrsus.com>
Organization: Blue Danube Software
Newsgroups: muc.lists.linux-kernel
Eric S. Raymond wrote:
>
> I'm thinking this business about UDI from SCO/Intel calls for a community
> response -- basically, an open letter urging the consortium to include
> OSD-conformant licensing of drivers as one of their conformance criteria.
I agree it does require a response. I would suggest that in addition
to OSD-conformant licensing of drivers that all Project UDI participants
who are also members of the I2O consortium understand that the "price"
for the Linux Community's help is the following:
I2O becomes totally open, just like Project UDI, in fact I2O
would use the following to indicate this:
(This is taken straight from the Project UDI Policies and Procedures
Document dated November 5th, 1995, I edited specifically for I2O)
<Begin Quote>
1. Purpose
The purpose of the I2O working group is to define and promote
a technical specification for high-performance I/O systems.
Participation in the specification process includes a number of
OS vendors and IHVs, and is open to new participants at any time.
Intelluctual Property
The I2O specification is intended to be publicly available for
implementation by anyone, whether or not they are participants
in the working group.
The _definition_ of any specification developed by the working
group will be placed in the public domain, not subject to copyright,
patent, or any other intellectual property right, so that any party
may implement or utilize the specification. However, any party may
develop and assert intellectual property rights over a particular
_implementation_ of the interface.
<End Quote>
If the participants in Project UDI & I2O are unwilling to meet this
"price", the Linux Community ignores them.
>
> Seems to me this is the kind of jawboning is precisely the sort of
> thing we ought to be using my mainstream visibility for (current batch
> of interviews upcoming: Upside, Fast Company, Le Monde, and the NY
> Times business section).
>
> I'm willing to draft that letter, and will invite signatories from the
> LI Board and the kernel list. OTOH, if anyone else has a case that
> they can do a better job, I will cheerfully defer to it.
>
> I've looked for a contact address for the UDI people, but have yet to find
> one. Anybody got a line?
--
Terry L. Ridder
Blue Danube Software (Blaue Donau Software)
"We do not write software, we compose it."
entertaining angels
by the light of my computer screen
24-7 you wait for me
entertaining angels
while the night becomes history
host of heaven, sing over me
==Entertaining Angels==Newsboys
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: ty...@MIT.EDU (Theodore Y. Ts'o)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the UDI folks?
Date: 1998/09/21
Message-ID: <199809211805.OAA00417@dcl.MIT.EDU>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 393411157
Approved: g...@greenie.muc.de
Sender: muc.de!l-linux-kernel-owner
References: <360530A8.5EBCD99E@tbcnet.com>
Newsgroups: muc.lists.linux-kernel
Before Linux International sends a "formal response", I suggest that
LI's Executive Director have an informal chat with the UDI folks first.
There's no point going off half-cocked on this one --- it will only make
the Linux community look immature. (Heck, I'm pretty embarassed by some
of the uninformed trivil on the linux-kernel list, and I'm hoping the
vendors are reading it and assuming that its representative of the
entire Linux community.)
Note that UDI has been around for years --- companies have been working
on this since 1993. Hence, in a long-running project like this, almost
everybody will have slightly different visions about what its goals are
and what they hope to achieve.
Quite frankly, I don't understand the comments in the press release
about their hoping that the Linux community will provide UDI drivers for
all of these devices. That simply doesn't make any sense; a native
driver will be faster, more efficient, and in all likelihood, easier to
implement. And whether you write a UDI driver or a native driver, you
still need the cooperation of the manufacturer to give you programming
specs.
What's much more likely to happen is that hardware manufacturers will
start shipping UDI drivers with their hardware, and that will allow them
to ship, say, Winmodem cards that will actually work on operating
systems other than Windows 95. (Winmodems currently don't even work
under NT).
Given that scenario, my personal take is that UDI is relatively
harmless. But before we start send a formal response, we should make
some informal contacts first. And one of the first questions I would
ask is a fuller explanation of their vision about the Linux community
providing UDI drivers. What they've written in their press release
simply doesn't make any sense. (But that's most likely a failure by
some marketing dweeb who was writing the press release than evidence of
something dirty and underhanded. "Never ascribe to malice what can be
adequately ascribed to stupidity.")
- Ted
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: e...@thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the UDI folks?
Date: 1998/09/21
Message-ID: <19980921142709.A25308@thyrsus.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 393436086
Approved: g...@greenie.muc.de
Sender: muc.de!l-linux-kernel-owner
References: <360530A8.5EBCD99E@tbcnet.com>
Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs
Newsgroups: muc.lists.linux-kernel
Theodore Y. Ts'o <ty...@MIT.EDU>:
> Before Linux International sends a "formal response", I suggest that
> LI's Executive Director have an informal chat with the UDI folks first.
Fine with me. I've held off publishing my draft open letter in order to allow
avenues like this to open up.
--
<a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr">Eric S. Raymond</a>
The following is a Python RSA implementation. According to the US Government
posting these four lines makes me an international arms trafficker! Join me
in civil disobedience; add these lines of code to your .sig block to help get
this stupid and unconstitutional law changed.
============================================================================
from sys import*;from string import*;a=argv;[s,p,q]=filter(lambda x:x[:1]!=
'-',a);d='-d'in a;e,n=atol(p,16),atol(q,16);l=(len(q)+1)/2;o,inb=l-d,l-1+d
while s:s=stdin.read(inb);s and map(stdout.write,map(lambda i,b=pow(reduce(
lambda x,y:(x<<8L)+y,map(ord,s)),e,n):chr(b>>8*i&255),range(o-1,-1,-1)))
If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation
should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of
criminal acts reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so
after a century and a half of trying -- that they must sweep under the
rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the
northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, the attempts at both
Federal and State levels in 1965-1976 -- establishes the repeated,
complete and inevitable failure of gun laws to control serious crime.
-- Senator Orrin Hatch, in a 1982 Senate Report
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: terr...@tbcnet.com (Terry L Ridder)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the UDI folks?
Date: 1998/09/22
Message-ID: <36072616.35B932C9@tbcnet.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 393542679
Approved: g...@greenie.muc.de
Sender: muc.de!l-linux-kernel-owner
References: <199809211805.OAA00417@dcl.MIT.EDU>
Organization: Blue Danube Software
Newsgroups: muc.lists.linux-kernel
Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
>
> Before Linux International sends a "formal response", I suggest that
> LI's Executive Director have an informal chat with the UDI folks first.
> There's no point going off half-cocked on this one --- it will only make
> the Linux community look immature. (Heck, I'm pretty embarassed by some
> of the uninformed trivil on the linux-kernel list, and I'm hoping the
> vendors are reading it and assuming that its representative of the
> entire Linux community.)
An informal chat with the UDI folks is appropriate, I would ask that
LI's Executive Director report back to the linux-kernel mailing list
concerning those informal chats.
Theodore, I assume that you meant "vendors are reading it and _not_
assuming
that it is representative of the entire Linux Community"
>
> Note that UDI has been around for years --- companies have been working
> on this since 1993. Hence, in a long-running project like this, almost
> everybody will have slightly different visions about what its goals are
> and what they hope to achieve.
This is true. Given the number of years I am sure that their hopes
and expectations have also become confused.
>
> Quite frankly, I don't understand the comments in the press release
> about their hoping that the Linux community will provide UDI drivers for
> all of these devices. That simply doesn't make any sense; a native
> driver will be faster, more efficient, and in all likelihood, easier to
> implement. And whether you write a UDI driver or a native driver, you
> still need the cooperation of the manufacturer to give you programming
> specs.
If we take Mr. Kevin Quick's statements as they are stated in the
article it would seem clear what they want. The reference platform
will be released as "freeware" ( I am assume GNU GPL since it would have
ti link with the kernel. ) to the Linux Community, and the Linux
Community is to undertake the "daunting" task of writing all those UDI
device drivers. Once we have written them the commercial OS vendors and
peripheral vendors will use our work as a "basis" for their work.
Look at the time line:
UDI started in 1993 still no complete specification. February 1999 it
is due out. Linux since 1993 with no "official" specification has native
drivers are many of the peripheral on the market. There may be a time
lag between the peripheral first hits the market and when there is
support
in Linux for it but eventually most are supported. What "group" has
more expertise at writing device drivers than the Linux Community?
None come to my mind readily.
>
> What's much more likely to happen is that hardware manufacturers will
> start shipping UDI drivers with their hardware, and that will allow them
> to ship, say, Winmodem cards that will actually work on operating
> systems other than Windows 95. (Winmodems currently don't even work
> under NT).
I do not have that feeling. They do not want Winmodem drivers they want
the "serious" stuff, SCSI and Network. Remember the context of the
article
is about Intel-arch UNIX servers. Servers basically require two things
disks and bandwidth.
>
> Given that scenario, my personal take is that UDI is relatively
> harmless. But before we start send a formal response, we should make
> some informal contacts first. And one of the first questions I would
> ask is a fuller explanation of their vision about the Linux community
> providing UDI drivers. What they've written in their press release
> simply doesn't make any sense. (But that's most likely a failure by
> some marketing dweeb who was writing the press release than evidence of
> something dirty and underhanded. "Never ascribe to malice what can be
> adequately ascribed to stupidity.")
I do not see it as harmless. If the Linux Community "buys" into Project
UDI
without getting I2O opened up, we are dealing with the same
participants.
Using the analogy that Alan Cox used, it is hard to shake the right hand
of Project UDI when the left hand is on the binary-only sword of I2O.
Which I why I advocate the price for our help that I do.
Basically the price translate to:
We will help provided you remove your other hand from the
binary-only sword of I2O. Please kindly show us two open hands.
That I hope LI's Executive Director conveys to them either informally
or formally, just as long as it is conveyed.
>
> - Ted
--
Terry L. Ridder
Blue Danube Software (Blaue Donau Software)
"We do not write software, we compose it."
entertaining angels
by the light of my computer screen
24-7 you wait for me
entertaining angels
while the night becomes history
host of heaven, sing over me
==Entertaining Angels==Newsboys
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: ty...@MIT.EDU (Theodore Y. Ts'o)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the UDI folks?
Date: 1998/09/22
Message-ID: <199809222246.SAA00845@dcl.MIT.EDU>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 393891891
Approved: g...@greenie.muc.de
Sender: muc.de!l-linux-kernel-owner
References: <36072616.35B932C9@tbcnet.com>
Newsgroups: muc.lists.linux-kernel
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 23:22:46 -0500
From: Terry L Ridder <terr...@tbcnet.com>
If we take Mr. Kevin Quick's statements as they are stated in the
article it would seem clear what they want. The reference platform
will be released as "freeware" ( I am assume GNU GPL since it would have
ti link with the kernel. ) to the Linux Community, and the Linux
Community is to undertake the "daunting" task of writing all those UDI
device drivers. Once we have written them the commercial OS vendors and
peripheral vendors will use our work as a "basis" for their work.
Yes, but that's insane. Why would any Linux developer choose to do so?
I might write a UDI driver if someone paid me enough money to do so, but
to do so for free? Why? Especially when a native driver will probably
work better, and probably be easier to write.
I do not see it as harmless. If the Linux Community "buys" into
Project UDI without getting I2O opened up, we are dealing with the
same participants. Using the analogy that Alan Cox used, it is hard
to shake the right hand of Project UDI when the left hand is on the
binary-only sword of I2O.
I see it as harmless because if you are right about the UDI Project, it
will simply never fly. The Linux Community is a volunteer community,
and as such, no one can dictate to our various volunteer developers to
suddenly start developing all of these UDI drivers for free. It simply
isn't going to happen.
The I2O argument is a red herring. C'mon! There are lots of Industry
Consoritums floating around. All of the I2O and UDI participants are
also members of lots of other organizations: the IETF, the POSIX working
groups, OSF, PCMCIA, QIC, etc. Does this mean that just because the
participants of the I2O are also members of the IETF, we shouldn't use
any IETF standard, like TCP/IP? This is pretty ridiculous on the face
of it. BTW, there's yet another hardware standard of most of these
organizations minus Intel, trying to develop a PCI follow-on that isn't
dominated by Intel. (So there's no guarantee that I2O will even win
out.)
We will help provided you remove your other hand from the
binary-only sword of I2O. Please kindly show us two open hands.
We can't even really say this, because we can't force developers to
develop under UDI. Hence, we can't promise to help. That's why a lot
of the comments about the UDI proposal simply don't make any sense.
- Ted
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: terr...@tbcnet.com (Terry L Ridder)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the UDI folks?
Date: 1998/09/22
Message-ID: <36083126.2DD36BE9@tbcnet.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 393903554
Approved: g...@greenie.muc.de
Sender: muc.de!l-linux-kernel-owner
References: <199809222246.SAA00845@dcl.MIT.EDU>
Organization: Blue Danube Software
Newsgroups: muc.lists.linux-kernel
Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
>
> Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 23:22:46 -0500
> From: Terry L Ridder <terr...@tbcnet.com>
>
> If we take Mr. Kevin Quick's statements as they are stated in the
> article it would seem clear what they want. The reference platform
> will be released as "freeware" ( I am assume GNU GPL since it would have
> ti link with the kernel. ) to the Linux Community, and the Linux
> Community is to undertake the "daunting" task of writing all those UDI
> device drivers. Once we have written them the commercial OS vendors and
> peripheral vendors will use our work as a "basis" for their work.
>
> Yes, but that's insane. Why would any Linux developer choose to do so?
> I might write a UDI driver if someone paid me enough money to do so, but
> to do so for free? Why? Especially when a native driver will probably
> work better, and probably be easier to write.
I did not say that their statements made any sense. ;-)
As to why, I can only speculate. One reason that does come to mind
would be solely to compare native driver vs. UDI driver.
I would guess that Project UDI figures that we would do it anyway.
As to why they would think that I have no idea.
Concerning native drivers I would tend to agree.
>
> I do not see it as harmless. If the Linux Community "buys" into
> Project UDI without getting I2O opened up, we are dealing with the
> same participants. Using the analogy that Alan Cox used, it is hard
> to shake the right hand of Project UDI when the left hand is on the
> binary-only sword of I2O.
>
> I see it as harmless because if you are right about the UDI Project, it
> will simply never fly. The Linux Community is a volunteer community,
> and as such, no one can dictate to our various volunteer developers to
> suddenly start developing all of these UDI drivers for free. It simply
> isn't going to happen.
That thought has crossed my mind. I personally would hope that everyone
understands the implications of both Project UDI and Intel's statements.
I totally agree that we can not dictate to the various volunteers
to go off and start writing UDI drivers. I think Project UDI and Intel
just assume that we will begin to write UDI device drivers. As to why
they
would think that I do not have the slightess idea.
>
> The I2O argument is a red herring. C'mon! There are lots of Industry
> Consoritums floating around. All of the I2O and UDI participants are
> also members of lots of other organizations: the IETF, the POSIX working
> groups, OSF, PCMCIA, QIC, etc. Does this mean that just because the
> participants of the I2O are also members of the IETF, we shouldn't use
> any IETF standard, like TCP/IP? This is pretty ridiculous on the face
> of it. BTW, there's yet another hardware standard of most of these
> organizations minus Intel, trying to develop a PCI follow-on that isn't
> dominated by Intel. (So there's no guarantee that I2O will even win
> out.)
I disagree, UDI and I2O are tightly coupled issues. Please refer to the
Project UDI Web Page at http://stage.sco.com/udi/i2o.html .
I have read about the new PCI follow-on.
>
> We will help provided you remove your other hand from the
> binary-only sword of I2O. Please kindly show us two open hands.
>
> We can't even really say this, because we can't force developers to
> develop under UDI. Hence, we can't promise to help. That's why a lot
> of the comments about the UDI proposal simply don't make any sense.
I think we can to some extent. If they do not open up I2O they will
clearly understand that the Linux Community will not even consider UDI.
With UDI and I2O tightly coupled I would tend to think that no Linux
device driver author is going to even consider UDI an option.
If I2O were to be opened up just as Project UDI is, the Linux
device driver author may at at least consider a UDI device driver.
Granted he/she may very well still reject it based on the performance
factors when compared to a native driver.
The bottomline in all this is:
Project UDI and Intel need the Linux Community more than the Linux
Community needs them.
The thought just occurred to me that perhaps we need to talk with the
Apache folks and see how they worked out the agreement with IBM.
That is the only other similar case I am able to think of.
>
> - Ted
--
Terry L. Ridder
Blue Danube Software (Blaue Donau Software)
"We do not write software, we compose it."
entertaining angels
by the light of my computer screen
24-7 you wait for me
entertaining angels
while the night becomes history
host of heaven, sing over me
==Entertaining Angels==Newsboys
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: jf...@sovereign.org (Jim Freeman)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the UDI folks?
Date: 1998/09/23
Message-ID: <199809231433.IAA00576@sovereign.sovereign.org>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 394203769
Approved: g...@greenie.muc.de
Sender: muc.de!l-linux-kernel-owner
References: <199809222246.SAA00845@dcl.MIT.EDU>
Newsgroups: muc.lists.linux-kernel
IGNORE the UDI-proponents' willingness to volunteer all of
Linuxdom for free driver-writing services, and instead just
make sure Linux can use UDI drivers that don't yet have UDI
equivalents.
If the Linux community would concentrate on _just_ making the UDI
support layer robust, Linux could focus on capably exploiting
whatever drivers come from whatever sources.
GPL the UDI support layer module, but leave it out of the
official kernel sources, so that vendors aren't left to think
that just providing a UDI driver gets them of the hook for
"real" Linux support.
Ted writes:
> Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 23:22:46 -0500
> From: Terry L Ridder <terr...@tbcnet.com>
>
> If we take Mr. Kevin Quick's statements as they are stated in the
> article it would seem clear what they want. The reference platform
> will be released as "freeware" ( I am assume GNU GPL since it would have
> ti link with the kernel. ) to the Linux Community, and the Linux
> Community is to undertake the "daunting" task of writing all those UDI
> device drivers. Once we have written them the commercial OS vendors and
> peripheral vendors will use our work as a "basis" for their work.
>
> Yes, but that's insane. Why would any Linux developer choose to do so?
> I might write a UDI driver if someone paid me enough money to do so, but
> to do so for free? Why? Especially when a native driver will probably
> work better, and probably be easier to write.
>
> I do not see it as harmless. If the Linux Community "buys" into
> Project UDI without getting I2O opened up, we are dealing with the
> same participants. Using the analogy that Alan Cox used, it is hard
> to shake the right hand of Project UDI when the left hand is on the
> binary-only sword of I2O.
>
> I see it as harmless because if you are right about the UDI Project, it
> will simply never fly. The Linux Community is a volunteer community,
> and as such, no one can dictate to our various volunteer developers to
> suddenly start developing all of these UDI drivers for free. It simply
> isn't going to happen.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: kqu...@iphase.com (Kevin Quick)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the UDI folks? (fwd)
Date: 1998/09/24
Message-ID: <13834.38122.437907.767295@pc-eng-013>
X-Deja-AN: 394582901
Approved: g...@greenie.muc.de
Sender: muc.de!l-linux-kernel-owner
References: <9809221346.AA00556@dale>
Reply-To: kqu...@iphase.com
Newsgroups: muc.lists.linux-kernel
David Hollister writes:
> Terry L Ridder says:
> >
> > Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> > >
> > > Before Linux International sends a "formal response", I suggest that
> > > LI's Executive Director have an informal chat with the UDI folks first.
> > > There's no point going off half-cocked on this one --- it will only make
> > > the Linux community look immature. (Heck, I'm pretty embarassed by some
> > > of the uninformed trivil on the linux-kernel list, and I'm hoping the
> > > vendors are reading it and assuming that its representative of the
> > > entire Linux community.)
> >
> > An informal chat with the UDI folks is appropriate, I would ask that
> > LI's Executive Director report back to the linux-kernel mailing list
> > concerning those informal chats.
> >
> > Theodore, I assume that you meant "vendors are reading it and _not_
> > assuming
> > that it is representative of the entire Linux Community"
I and any of the other UDI folks would welcome discussions with LI's
Executive Director. Please have this person get in contact with me by
email or telephone (see my .sig).
> >
> > >
> > > Note that UDI has been around for years --- companies have been working
> > > on this since 1993. Hence, in a long-running project like this, almost
> > > everybody will have slightly different visions about what its goals are
> > > and what they hope to achieve.
> >
> > This is true. Given the number of years I am sure that their hopes
> > and expectations have also become confused.
Project UDI is specified in a series of 5 books. Each book discusses
a different aspect of UDI and they tend to increase in complexity as
you progress through the books (excepting the books that aren't
written yet and are therefore very easy to read :).
Book 4 is the actual detailed specification for UDI. As with most
specifications, some more descriptive context is very helpful in
understanding the specification.
Book 3 provides some of the description although it's presently out of
date relative to Book 4 (note that all of this is a work in
progress...)
Book 1 is also known as the "UDI White Paper" and has several sections
including a UDI History. I'd recommend reading that section to
understand some of the motivations and history that got us here where
we are today.
The books are available at our web site: http://www.sco.com/UDI
> >
> > >
> > > Quite frankly, I don't understand the comments in the press release
> > > about their hoping that the Linux community will provide UDI drivers for
> > > all of these devices. That simply doesn't make any sense; a native
> > > driver will be faster, more efficient, and in all likelihood, easier to
> > > implement. And whether you write a UDI driver or a native driver, you
> > > still need the cooperation of the manufacturer to give you programming
> > > specs.
> >
> > If we take Mr. Kevin Quick's statements as they are stated in the
> > article it would seem clear what they want. The reference platform
> > will be released as "freeware" ( I am assume GNU GPL since it would have
> > ti link with the kernel. ) to the Linux Community, and the Linux
> > Community is to undertake the "daunting" task of writing all those UDI
> > device drivers. Once we have written them the commercial OS vendors and
> > peripheral vendors will use our work as a "basis" for their work.
I spoke with a couple of press editors on the day Intel made their
press release. These were somewhat free form "essay answers" to a few
general questions posed by those folks. Please understand that I'm
not disparaging the press here, but when they take written notes by
hand during a 30-minute interview and subsequently write an article
for publication, the context of some statements is misleading or mixed
with other statements.
[There are also bad points to the press, such as the completely
abstruse, generally incorrect, and poorly researched articles
regarding this subject that appeared in the Wall Street Journal recently].
What my intent was in the above statement was that developing drivers
for the wide range of adapters and other devices available today is a
"daunting" task. Re-developing those drivers N number of times to
support N number of operating systems is even more daunting. Project
UDI is attempting to reduce N to a very small number (potentially
"1"). Because of this tradeoff, the Linux community can directly
benefit from drivers developed by hardware manufacturers and other OS
vendors. Likewise, the substantial capabilities of the Linux kernel
developer community can also benefit the driver support issue.
This will be threatening to some people. When adapter vendor X
introduces adapter Y along with a UDI driver, there will not be a need
for a new driver to be developed for OS's which support UDI. Some
driver folks may find that they don't need to do as many drivers
(although this is not to say that there can't be multiple UDI driver
implementations for the same adapter Y).
This will be benificial to a lot of people. When I run OS Z on my
system, I don't have to wait for vendor X, Linux developer D, or
internal engineer E to develop the driver for OS Z to be able to use
the device. If OS Z supports UDI I can use the driver supplied by
vendor X regardless of what the value of variable Z is.
And of course, this is a change to the current way of doing
things... there's always both good and bad in any change. The
challenge before Project UDI (and all of us) is to maximize the good.
'Nuff said, I'm getting too pedantic.
> >
> > Look at the time line:
> >
> > UDI started in 1993 still no complete specification. February 1999 it
> > is due out. Linux since 1993 with no "official" specification has native
> > drivers are many of the peripheral on the market. There may be a time
> > lag between the peripheral first hits the market and when there is
> > support
> > in Linux for it but eventually most are supported. What "group" has
> > more expertise at writing device drivers than the Linux Community?
> > None come to my mind readily.
> >
> > >
> > > What's much more likely to happen is that hardware manufacturers will
> > > start shipping UDI drivers with their hardware, and that will allow them
> > > to ship, say, Winmodem cards that will actually work on operating
> > > systems other than Windows 95. (Winmodems currently don't even work
> > > under NT).
> >
> > I do not have that feeling. They do not want Winmodem drivers they want
> > the "serious" stuff, SCSI and Network. Remember the context of the
> > article
> > is about Intel-arch UNIX servers. Servers basically require two things
> > disks and bandwidth.
The goals of Project UDI are congruent with but not precisely the same
as the goals of Intel's involvement in Project UDI. Intel is focusing
on the Unix community. Project UDI has developed the UDI
specification to be valid in any number of environments from small
embedded environments up through workstation and server and
(distributed) supercomputer environments. Most of the developers are
Unix-centric, but there's a great deal of driver experience in the
Project UDI participant's history, including non-Unix environments.
The present focus of UDI is to encompass a broad range of devices with
different operating characteristics that allow us to have an
appropriate breadth in the specification. However we also have
limited bandwidth. Therefore we have chosen storage and LAN
networking as the initial focus. We do feel that UDI is appropriate
for almost all devices, we just haven't gotten there yet.
> >
> > >
> > > Given that scenario, my personal take is that UDI is relatively
> > > harmless. But before we start send a formal response, we should make
> > > some informal contacts first. And one of the first questions I would
> > > ask is a fuller explanation of their vision about the Linux community
> > > providing UDI drivers. What they've written in their press release
> > > simply doesn't make any sense. (But that's most likely a failure by
> > > some marketing dweeb who was writing the press release than evidence of
> > > something dirty and underhanded. "Never ascribe to malice what can be
> > > adequately ascribed to stupidity.")
> >
> > I do not see it as harmless. If the Linux Community "buys" into Project
> > UDI
> > without getting I2O opened up, we are dealing with the same
> > participants.
> > Using the analogy that Alan Cox used, it is hard to shake the right hand
> > of Project UDI when the left hand is on the binary-only sword of
> > I2O.
Project UDI is separate and distinct from I2O. We have a statement
regarding this on our Web page, and I'll be posting another separate
email on this subject later but they are not mutually exclusive nor
are they a joint effort. The real glue between UDI and I2O is Intel's
involvement and this will help clarify the distinction and increase
the synergy.
> >
> > Which I why I advocate the price for our help that I do.
> > Basically the price translate to:
> >
> > We will help provided you remove your other hand from the
> > binary-only sword of I2O. Please kindly show us two open hands.
> >
> > That I hope LI's Executive Director conveys to them either informally
> > or formally, just as long as it is conveyed.
As stated above, these are separate entities although the press
information wasn't very clear about this which is where the above
statements arise.
The operating model for the two organizations is different:
Project UDI is open to everyone and the specifications are available
on the web site. We have developed a prototype implementation for
several devices and operating systems. This prototype is not
presently available to the public but most of it will be moved into
the public domain over the next few months. Intel will be developing
the Linux UDI support (via Sunil Saxena's group) which they will
provide as freeware as well.
I2O maintains a SIG with a steering committee and cost-based
membership to offset the development and marketing efforts (in
contrast, UDI development and marketing are volunteer funded which
partly explains the low levels of marketing to date and the length of
the development of the specification).
> >
> > >
> > > - Ted
> >
> > --
> > Terry L. Ridder
> > Blue Danube Software (Blaue Donau Software)
> > "We do not write software, we compose it."
> >
> > entertaining angels
> > by the light of my computer screen
> > 24-7 you wait for me
> > entertaining angels
> > while the night becomes history
> > host of heaven, sing over me
> > ==Entertaining Angels==Newsboys
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> > the body of a message to majord...@vger.rutgers.edu
> > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> >
>
>
> --
> David Hollister Interphase Corporation dholl...@iphase.com
> Software Engineer Dallas, TX
> http://www.public.asu.edu/~dhollist
>
--
________________________________________________________________________
Kevin Quick Interphase Corporation Engineering Dallas, Texas
kqu...@iphase.com http://www.iphase.com 214.654.5173
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: kqu...@iphase.com (Kevin Quick)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the UDI folks?
Date: 1998/09/24
Message-ID: <13834.41418.937914.153936@pc-eng-013>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 394582914
Approved: g...@greenie.muc.de
Sender: muc.de!l-linux-kernel-owner
References: <36083126.2DD36BE9@tbcnet.com>
Reply-To: kqu...@iphase.com
Newsgroups: muc.lists.linux-kernel
Terry L Ridder writes:
> Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> >
> >
> > The I2O argument is a red herring. C'mon! There are lots of Industry
> > Consoritums floating around. All of the I2O and UDI participants are
> > also members of lots of other organizations: the IETF, the POSIX working
> > groups, OSF, PCMCIA, QIC, etc. Does this mean that just because the
> > participants of the I2O are also members of the IETF, we shouldn't use
> > any IETF standard, like TCP/IP? This is pretty ridiculous on the face
> > of it. BTW, there's yet another hardware standard of most of these
> > organizations minus Intel, trying to develop a PCI follow-on that isn't
> > dominated by Intel. (So there's no guarantee that I2O will even win
> > out.)
>
> I disagree, UDI and I2O are tightly coupled issues. Please refer to the
> Project UDI Web Page at http://stage.sco.com/udi/i2o.html .
I think you misinterpreted the web page. We posted an I2O perspective
to our web page because people ask us about the difference a lot.
However, in the past I2O and UDI have been completely separate and
distinct. Intel's involvement will undoubtably change that, but UDI
cannot provide you with the keys to the I2O kingdom.
-Kevin
--
________________________________________________________________________
Kevin Quick Interphase Corporation Engineering Dallas, Texas
kqu...@iphase.com http://www.iphase.com 214.654.5173
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: kqu...@iphase.com (Kevin Quick)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the UDI folks?
Date: 1998/09/24
Message-ID: <13834.41016.439741.816442@pc-eng-013>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 394582915
Approved: g...@greenie.muc.de
Sender: muc.de!l-linux-kernel-owner
References: <199809222246.SAA00845@dcl.MIT.EDU>
Reply-To: kqu...@iphase.com
Newsgroups: muc.lists.linux-kernel
Theodore Y. Ts'o writes:
> Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 23:22:46 -0500
> From: Terry L Ridder <terr...@tbcnet.com>
>
> If we take Mr. Kevin Quick's statements as they are stated in the
> article it would seem clear what they want. The reference platform
> will be released as "freeware" ( I am assume GNU GPL since it would have
> ti link with the kernel. ) to the Linux Community, and the Linux
No, freeware. If Linus decides to accept UDI as a part of the core
Linux kernel then presumably the implementation that went into the
kernel would be GPL as would be the rest of the kernel but that
wouldn't change the freeware status of the Intel implementation.
> Community is to undertake the "daunting" task of writing all those UDI
> device drivers. Once we have written them the commercial OS vendors and
> peripheral vendors will use our work as a "basis" for their work.
>
> Yes, but that's insane. Why would any Linux developer choose to do so?
> I might write a UDI driver if someone paid me enough money to do so, but
> to do so for free? Why? Especially when a native driver will probably
> work better, and probably be easier to write.
I covered the misinterpretation chain (me->press->Terry) in a previous
email. You are basically correct here. You would want to develop a
UDI driver if:
a) you wanted to (for personal or community use e.g. Linux)
b) someone paid you to
A native driver might be better or easier as long as you didn't care
to ever run that device in another OS.
>
> I do not see it as harmless. If the Linux Community "buys" into
> Project UDI without getting I2O opened up, we are dealing with the
> same participants. Using the analogy that Alan Cox used, it is hard
> to shake the right hand of Project UDI when the left hand is on the
> binary-only sword of I2O.
>
> I see it as harmless because if you are right about the UDI Project, it
> will simply never fly. The Linux Community is a volunteer community,
> and as such, no one can dictate to our various volunteer developers to
> suddenly start developing all of these UDI drivers for free. It simply
> isn't going to happen.
And neither Project UDI nor Intel is attempting to dictate Linux
volunteer developer activities. Again see the previous email which
explains the situation wherein Project UDI exists independently but
cooperatively with both Linux and the other developer communities.
>
> The I2O argument is a red herring. C'mon! There are lots of Industry
> Consoritums floating around. All of the I2O and UDI participants are
> also members of lots of other organizations: the IETF, the POSIX working
> groups, OSF, PCMCIA, QIC, etc. Does this mean that just because the
> participants of the I2O are also members of the IETF, we shouldn't use
> any IETF standard, like TCP/IP? This is pretty ridiculous on the face
> of it. BTW, there's yet another hardware standard of most of these
> organizations minus Intel, trying to develop a PCI follow-on that isn't
> dominated by Intel. (So there's no guarantee that I2O will even win
> out.)
>
> We will help provided you remove your other hand from the
> binary-only sword of I2O. Please kindly show us two open hands.
>
> We can't even really say this, because we can't force developers to
> develop under UDI. Hence, we can't promise to help. That's why a lot
> of the comments about the UDI proposal simply don't make any sense.
>
> - Ted
I agree.
-Kevin
--
________________________________________________________________________
Kevin Quick Interphase Corporation Engineering Dallas, Texas
kqu...@iphase.com http://www.iphase.com 214.654.5173
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the UDI folks?
Date: 1998/09/24
Message-ID: <m0zMCHp-000aR2C@the-village.bc.nu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 394666424
Approved: g...@greenie.muc.de
Sender: muc.de!l-linux-kernel-owner
References: <199809231433.IAA00576@sovereign.sovereign.org>
Newsgroups: muc.lists.linux-kernel
> If the Linux community would concentrate on _just_ making the UDI
> support layer robust, Linux could focus on capably exploiting
> whatever drivers come from whatever sources.
>
> GPL the UDI support layer module, but leave it out of the
> official kernel sources, so that vendors aren't left to think
> that just providing a UDI driver gets them of the hook for
> "real" Linux support.
Having been through the entire current UDI documentation there are two
problems with your great suggestion
1. The documentation is currently so tattered and incomplete you
couldnt do it. It only claims to be a draft so thats quite
understandable.
2. There is probably 6 to 8 weeks work to get it even going. You
would need to hack up the linux memory allocator to make it work
at all. The way descriptor blocks are passed is going to make
networking using such devices crawl.
Its too big a job to be worth doing. I 6 to 8 weeks solid work I can
probably write 3 or 4 drivers
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: jf...@sovereign.org (Jim Freeman)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the UDI folks?
Date: 1998/09/25
Message-ID: <199809250452.WAA09821@sovereign.sovereign.org>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 394666471
Approved: g...@greenie.muc.de
Sender: muc.de!l-linux-kernel-owner
References: <m0zMCHp-000aR2C@the-village.bc.nu>
Newsgroups: muc.lists.linux-kernel
Alan writes:
> > If the Linux community would concentrate on _just_ making the UDI
> > support layer robust, Linux could focus on capably exploiting
> > whatever drivers come from whatever sources.
> >
> > GPL the UDI support layer module, but leave it out of the
> > official kernel sources, so that vendors aren't left to think
> > that just providing a UDI driver gets them of the hook for
> > "real" Linux support.
>
> Having been through the entire current UDI documentation there are two
> problems with your great suggestion
>
> 1. The documentation is currently so tattered and incomplete you
> couldnt do it. It only claims to be a draft so thats quite
> understandable.
>
> 2. There is probably 6 to 8 weeks work to get it even going. You
> would need to hack up the linux memory allocator to make it work
> at all. The way descriptor blocks are passed is going to make
> networking using such devices crawl.
>
> Its too big a job to be worth doing. I 6 to 8 weeks solid work I can
> probably write 3 or 4 drivers
With Linus's official "wait and see" attitude, let the Project UDI
folk do (or persuade/pay whoever to do) the support module implementation,
consuming exported ksyms. For things that need to be re-worked as
you say, let the onus be on the UDI implementors to convince the
Kernel Gods (SM - registration applied for) of any kernel facilities
that need to added or changed, BUT on the basis of how/why such
changes are good for Linux, NOT on the basis of them being required
for UDI. If the kernel doesn't get bettered by accommodating UDI,
UDI doesn't get accomodated.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: b...@redhat.com (Bob Young)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the UDI folks?
Date: 1998/09/25
Message-ID: <199809251525.LAA01231@bobster.redhat.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 394785952
Approved: g...@greenie.muc.de
Sender: muc.de!l-linux-kernel-owner
References: <13834.41418.937914.153936@pc-eng-013>
Newsgroups: muc.lists.linux-kernel
Eric, Hold off objecting to Intel's UDI initiative until you've had
a chance to talk to Linus about it. Linus has been talking to Intel
about it and while not wildly enthusiastic, he does admit that if Intel
is able to get UDI widely deployed, then it could be a bad thing for
Linux if Linux did not support it.
For a variety of logical reasons Linus simply does not
see UDI as the threat that some of the mailing-list discussions have
made it out to be. I'll let him explain those arguments to you.
Cheers, Bob.
Red Hat Software, Inc.-----------------------------------------
Phone 919-547-0012 x227 Fax 919-547-0024
P.O. Box 13588 email: b...@redhat.com
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 http://www.redhat.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: terr...@tbcnet.com (Terry L Ridder)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the UDI folks? (fwd)
Date: 1998/09/26
Message-ID: <360CA815.184EE5E0@tbcnet.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 395025899
Approved: g...@greenie.muc.de
Sender: muc.de!l-linux-kernel-owner
References: <Pine.LNX.3.96.980925054637.650F-100000@red.prv>
Organization: Blue Danube Software
Newsgroups: muc.lists.linux-kernel
Hello All;
Given the ZDnet article this may not be that paraniod after all.
Check out
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/zdnn_smgraph_display/0,4436,2142107,00.html
Basically Intel and NetScape are buying a minority stake in RedHat.
Now let us see:
Intel -- joins UDI
Intel -- Steering committee member of I20
Intel -- buying minority stake in RedHat
Many new questions and very few answers.
Mike A. Harris wrote:
>
> On Thu, 24 Sep 1998, Kevin Quick wrote:
>
> >As stated above, these are separate entities although the press
> >information wasn't very clear about this which is where the above
> >statements arise.
> >
> >The operating model for the two organizations is different:
> >
> >Project UDI is open to everyone and the specifications are available
> >on the web site. We have developed a prototype implementation for
> >several devices and operating systems. This prototype is not
> >presently available to the public but most of it will be moved into
> >the public domain over the next few months. Intel will be developing
> >the Linux UDI support (via Sunil Saxena's group) which they will
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> |
> <PARANOIA MODE=ON> |
> |
> Spells "Linus Anexas" backwards.... Is that Latin for
> "Annex Linus"? What about Spanish?
>
> <PARANOIA MODE=OFF>
>
> ;o)
>
> Am I the only one to notice this? ;o)
>
> --
> Mike A. Harris
--
Terry L. Ridder
Blue Danube Software (Blaue Donau Software)
"We do not write software, we compose it."
entertaining angels
by the light of my computer screen
24-7 you wait for me
entertaining angels
while the night becomes history
host of heaven, sing over me
==Entertaining Angels==Newsboys
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: alex.bu...@tahallah.demon.co.uk (Alex Buell)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the UDI folks? (fwd)
Date: 1998/09/26
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.05.9809260655070.169-100000@tahallah.demon.co.uk>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 395045191
Approved: g...@greenie.muc.de
Sender: muc.de!l-linux-kernel-owner
References: <360CA815.184EE5E0@tbcnet.com>
Reply-To: alex.bu...@tahallah.demon.co.uk
Newsgroups: muc.lists.linux-kernel
On Sat, 26 Sep 1998, Terry L Ridder wrote:
> Basically Intel and NetScape are buying a minority stake in RedHat.
I'd be interested in seeing what Alan Cox has to say. He works for them -
RedHat that is.
Cheers,
Alex
--
/\_/\ Legalise cannabis now!
( o.o ) Grow some cannabis today!
> ^ < Peace, Love, Unity and Respect to all.
http://www.tahallah.demon.co.uk - *new* - rewritten for text browser users!
Linux tahallah 2.1.122 #43 Sat Sep 19 10:54:36 EDT 1998 libc 2.0.96
One AMD 486 DX/4 processor, 49.77 total bogomips, 32M RAM
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: mhar...@ican.net (Mike A. Harris)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the UDI folks? (fwd)
Date: 1998/09/26
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.980926123132.699I-100000@red.prv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 395114278
Approved: g...@greenie.muc.de
Sender: muc.de!l-linux-kernel-owner
References: <Pine.LNX.4.05.9809260655070.169-100000@tahallah.demon.co.uk>
Organization: Capslock Computer Consulting
Newsgroups: muc.lists.linux-kernel
On Sat, 26 Sep 1998, Alex Buell wrote:
>> Basically Intel and NetScape are buying a minority stake in RedHat.
>
>I'd be interested in seeing what Alan Cox has to say. He works for them -
>RedHat that is.
Yes, I'm interested as well. Lets keep it a minority stake...
--
Mike A. Harris - Computer Consultant - Linux advocate
Linux software galore: http://freshmeat.net
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: terr...@tbcnet.com (Terry L Ridder)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the UDI folks?
Date: 1998/09/26
Message-ID: <360CEBE2.28EE331@tbcnet.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 395067366
Approved: g...@greenie.muc.de
Sender: muc.de!l-linux-kernel-owner
References: <199809250452.WAA09821@sovereign.sovereign.org>
Organization: Blue Danube Software
Newsgroups: muc.lists.linux-kernel
Hello All;
Under ordinary circumstances I would agree with both Alan and Jim,
however
it is becoming clear that the circumstances are not ordinary. With the
ZDnet article concerning Intel and NetScape taking a minority stake in
RedHat my gut feeling is that UDI is coming whether we like it or not.
Jim Freeman wrote:
>
> Alan writes:
> > > If the Linux community would concentrate on _just_ making the UDI
> > > support layer robust, Linux could focus on capably exploiting
> > > whatever drivers come from whatever sources.
> > >
> > > GPL the UDI support layer module, but leave it out of the
> > > official kernel sources, so that vendors aren't left to think
> > > that just providing a UDI driver gets them of the hook for
> > > "real" Linux support.
> >
> > Having been through the entire current UDI documentation there are two
> > problems with your great suggestion
> >
> > 1. The documentation is currently so tattered and incomplete you
> > couldnt do it. It only claims to be a draft so thats quite
> > understandable.
> >
> > 2. There is probably 6 to 8 weeks work to get it even going. You
> > would need to hack up the linux memory allocator to make it work
> > at all. The way descriptor blocks are passed is going to make
> > networking using such devices crawl.
> >
> > Its too big a job to be worth doing. I 6 to 8 weeks solid work I can
> > probably write 3 or 4 drivers
>
> With Linus's official "wait and see" attitude, let the Project UDI
> folk do (or persuade/pay whoever to do) the support module implementation,
> consuming exported ksyms. For things that need to be re-worked as
> you say, let the onus be on the UDI implementors to convince the
> Kernel Gods (SM - registration applied for) of any kernel facilities
> that need to added or changed, BUT on the basis of how/why such
> changes are good for Linux, NOT on the basis of them being required
> for UDI. If the kernel doesn't get bettered by accommodating UDI,
> UDI doesn't get accomodated.
>
--
Terry L. Ridder
Blue Danube Software (Blaue Donau Software)
"We do not write software, we compose it."
entertaining angels
by the light of my computer screen
24-7 you wait for me
entertaining angels
while the night becomes history
host of heaven, sing over me
==Entertaining Angels==Newsboys
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: lin...@z.ml.org (Gregory Maxwell)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the UDI folks? (fwd)
Date: 1998/09/28
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.980927211429.22361H-100000@z.ml.org>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 395469771
Approved: g...@greenie.muc.de
Sender: muc.de!l-linux-kernel-owner
References: <Pine.LNX.4.05.9809260655070.169-100000@tahallah.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: muc.lists.linux-kernel
On Sat, 26 Sep 1998, Alex Buell wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Sep 1998, Terry L Ridder wrote:
>
> > Basically Intel and NetScape are buying a minority stake in RedHat.
>
> I'd be interested in seeing what Alan Cox has to say. He works for them -
> RedHat that is.
>
> Cheers,
> Alex
No he doesn't. He works for building #3 and is an independant contractor.
I dont think that it's too important to us (other then that he seems
preety free about what he works on), but he is always clear about his
employment.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: lin...@z.ml.org (Gregory Maxwell)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the UDI folks?
Date: 1998/09/28
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.980927202706.22361C-100000@z.ml.org>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 395462073
Approved: g...@greenie.muc.de
Sender: muc.de!l-linux-kernel-owner
References: <199809251525.LAA01231@bobster.redhat.com>
Newsgroups: muc.lists.linux-kernel
This is actually funny..
On Fri, 25 Sep 1998, Bob Young wrote:
> Eric, Hold off objecting to Intel's UDI initiative until you've had
> a chance to talk to Linus about it. Linus has been talking to Intel
> about it and while not wildly enthusiastic, he does admit that if Intel
> is able to get UDI widely deployed, then it could be a bad thing for
> Linux if Linux did not support it.
We should support it because it is a threat?!?
Your argument for it validates all the arguments against it!
People say it's bad because it encourages binary drivers. You say that
Linus admits that if it becomes widely deployed then it will be bad for
us, presumably because it would cause more binary drivers.
Frankly, I believe that Linux is big enough that we can make it
not an issue. What does RedHat think of Linux's market share VS all non-MS OS
vendors. It seems to me that as far as hardware vendors are concerned
(i.e. legacy systems don't count much, as new hardware isn't bought for
them) Linux has a market share bigger then all others (except MS)
combined.
> For a variety of logical reasons Linus simply does not
> see UDI as the threat that some of the mailing-list discussions have
> made it out to be. I'll let him explain those arguments to you.
>
> Cheers, Bob.
I don't see how it could be bad if we don't if it's not bad if we do.
Respectfully yours,
Gregory Maxwell
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: b...@redhat.com (Bob Young)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the UDI folks?
Date: 1998/09/28
Message-ID: <199809280134.VAA10142@localhost.localdomain>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 395469773
Approved: g...@greenie.muc.de
Sender: muc.de!l-linux-kernel-owner
References: <Pine.LNX.3.96.980927202706.22361C-100000@z.ml.org>
Newsgroups: muc.lists.linux-kernel
Gregory,
You are reading too much into my note. All I was asking is for Eric
to check with Linus before posting his Open Letter.
Btw, by "support" I simply meant "able to use", nothing more.
We absolutely agree that source included drivers are much more
efficient and effective for Linux. Which is exactly why we don't see
UDI as much of a threat to Linux.
Cheers, Bob.
> This is actually funny..
>
> On Fri, 25 Sep 1998, Bob Young wrote:
>
> > Eric, Hold off objecting to Intel's UDI initiative until you've had
> > a chance to talk to Linus about it. Linus has been talking to Intel
> > about it and while not wildly enthusiastic, he does admit that if Intel
> > is able to get UDI widely deployed, then it could be a bad thing for
> > Linux if Linux did not support it.
>
> We should support it because it is a threat?!?
>
> Your argument for it validates all the arguments against it!
>
> People say it's bad because it encourages binary drivers. You say that
> Linus admits that if it becomes widely deployed then it will be bad for
> us, presumably because it would cause more binary drivers.
>
> Frankly, I believe that Linux is big enough that we can make it
> not an issue. What does RedHat think of Linux's market share VS all non-MS OS
> vendors. It seems to me that as far as hardware vendors are concerned
> (i.e. legacy systems don't count much, as new hardware isn't bought for
> them) Linux has a market share bigger then all others (except MS)
> combined.
>
> > For a variety of logical reasons Linus simply does not
> > see UDI as the threat that some of the mailing-list discussions have
> > made it out to be. I'll let him explain those arguments to you.
> >
> > Cheers, Bob.
>
> I don't see how it could be bad if we don't if it's not bad if we do.
>
>
> Respectfully yours,
> Gregory Maxwell
>
Red Hat Software, Inc.-----------------------------------------
Phone 919-547-0012 x227 Fax 919-547-0024
P.O. Box 13588 email: b...@redhat.com
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 http://www.redhat.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the UDI folks?
Date: 1998/10/03
Message-ID: <m0zPZa5-000aRpC@the-village.bc.nu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 397481707
Approved: g...@greenie.muc.de
Sender: muc.de!l-linux-kernel-owner
References: <360CEBE2.28EE331@tbcnet.com>
Reply-To: linux-ker...@vger.rutgers.edu
Newsgroups: muc.lists.linux-kernel
> Under ordinary circumstances I would agree with both Alan and Jim,
> however
> it is becoming clear that the circumstances are not ordinary. With the
> ZDnet article concerning Intel and NetScape taking a minority stake in
> RedHat my gut feeling is that UDI is coming whether we like it or not.
Im not sure I follow the reasoning. As far as Im aware Linus isnt for
sale. And Linus quite intentionally doesnt work for a Linux vendor
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the UDI folks? (fwd)
Date: 1998/10/03
Message-ID: <m0zPVu4-000aYuC@the-village.bc.nu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 397474024
Approved: g...@greenie.muc.de
Sender: muc.de!l-linux-kernel-owner
References: <Pine.LNX.3.96.980926123132.699I-100000@red.prv>
Reply-To: linux-ker...@vger.rutgers.edu
Newsgroups: muc.lists.linux-kernel
> >> Basically Intel and NetScape are buying a minority stake in RedHat.
> >I'd be interested in seeing what Alan Cox has to say. He works for them -
> >RedHat that is.
>
> Yes, I'm interested as well. Lets keep it a minority stake...
Well I'm quite happy at the moment and Red Hat senior people believe in free
software. I would hope the folks of the other Linux vendors are going
"oh wow oh wow oh wow, that means we must be worth this much too and can
invest in greater things".
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the UDI folks? (fwd)
Date: 1998/10/03
Message-ID: <m0zPZtf-000aRxC@the-village.bc.nu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 397481708
Approved: g...@greenie.muc.de
Sender: muc.de!l-linux-kernel-owner
References: <Pine.LNX.3.96.980927211429.22361H-100000@z.ml.org>
Reply-To: linux-ker...@vger.rutgers.edu
Newsgroups: muc.lists.linux-kernel
> > I'd be interested in seeing what Alan Cox has to say. He works for them -
> > RedHat that is.
>
> No he doesn't. He works for building #3 and is an independant contractor.
> I dont think that it's too important to us (other then that he seems
> preety free about what he works on), but he is always clear about his
> employment.
Almost all of the work I do is for Red Hat. If it had been someone else
claiming to be independant in the same circumstances I would have quibbled
so..
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: h...@zk3.dec.com (Jon 'maddog' Hall, USG Senior Leader)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the UDI folks?: Killing two birds with one stone
Date: 1998/10/12
Message-ID: <9810122357.AA03047@shaman.zk3.dec.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 400557882
Approved: g...@greenie.muc.de
Sender: muc.de!l-linux-kernel-owner
References: <199809280134.VAA10142@localhost.localdomain>
Newsgroups: muc.lists.linux-kernel
Hi,
Sometimes it is good to be on the road for four weeks. I get to come back
and read the entire stream of conciousness, rather than get it a piece at
a time.
Here are some of my thoughts:
Adam is right. While LI embraces the OSD concepts, it is not exclusive.
We encourage people to be Open Source, but LI's main goal is to have them use
the Linux(R) operating system as an alternative to Microsoft.
Second, there is nothing that would stop someone from developing a binary-only
loadable device driver today, as long as they did it from scratch and did not
use any GPLed code. Difficult, yes. Impossible, no.
Third, while UDI does have the capability of allowing binary-only drivers
to be generated and distributed, its larger capability is to allow the same
APIs to go across operating systems. Therefore people who write device drivers
for *BSD or SPARC or Digital Unix will also be writing them for Linux. This
is a win-win situation.
Fourth, if you think that a hardware company will sit around waiting for
Linux developers to volunteer to write their device drivers on products which
often have a six month (or less) lifetime...this is highly unlikely. But
to allow a company to develop a device driver for all OSs at the same time,
and allow them to distribute it either in source or binary (or both) is a win.
Fifth, if you look at the companies listed on the web page, you will see that
most of them are now LI members:
o SCO
o Compaq
o Sun
o Adaptec
with others becoming more "Linux minded" by the day:
o Intel
o IBM
If you don't believe the last one, remember "Apache"....and I met six IBMers
at ISPcon who were bandishing penguins on the IBM stand.
Sixth, both several months ago and recently I talked with people from Intel
about I2O, and while they have promised this before, at least they are still
saying that the specification will be made public. Compaq's own engineers
have told me that this is the intent also.
Seventh, the Linux and Open Source community will speak with their dollars,
as they always have. Distributions that are all Open Source will remain
so, because that is what their customers want. And when the hardware vendors
wonder why their competitors are outselling them two to one, it will be
painfully obvious there are customers who are unwilling to go to a web site,
or load yet another CD-ROM to install proprietary drivers, and those customers
will not be wanting to buy hardware with proprietary drivers when there are
Open Source alternatives.
Distributions that do have proprietary software in them will probably continue
to have it, and may incorporate binary-only drivers. Customers will chose
whether or not to buy these distributions.
I will be happy to talk to the UDI and the I2O people, hopefully at the same
time. I may be able to kill two birds with one stone. It may take me a few
days, but I will.
md
--
=============================================================================
Jon "maddog" Hall Internet: mad...@zk3.dec.com
Senior Leader, UNIX Software Group Executive Director, Linux(R) Intern'l
Compaq Computer Corporation Linux International
Mailstop ZK03-2/U15 80 Amherst St.
110 Spit Brook Rd. Amherst, N.H. 03031-3032 U.S.A.
Nashua, N.H. 03062-2698 U.S.A.
WWW: http://www.compaq.com WWW: http://www.li.org
Voice: +1.603.884.1341 Voice: +1.603.672.4557
FAX: +1.603.884.6424 Board Member: Uniforum Association
Office: ZK03-2/V15 Board Member: USENIX Association
(R)Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds in the United States and other
countries.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: h...@zk3.dec.com (Jon Maddog Hall)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the UDI folks?: Killing two birds with one stone
Date: 1998/10/14
Message-ID: <9810140627.AA06563@shaman.zk3.dec.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 400998404
Approved: g...@greenie.muc.de
Sender: muc.de!l-linux-kernel-owner
Newsgroups: muc.lists.linux-kernel
Terry,
A fine reading of the document on the web pages. However, I still prefer
to actually talk to the committee and see what they say at this time.
md
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: terr...@tbcnet.com (Terry L Ridder)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the UDI folks?: Killing two birds with one stone
Date: 1998/10/14
Message-ID: <36244544.6BBD00A2@tbcnet.com>
X-Deja-AN: 401004137
Approved: g...@greenie.muc.de
Sender: muc.de!l-linux-kernel-owner
References: <9810122357.AA03047@shaman.zk3.dec.com>
Organization: Blue Danube Software
Newsgroups: muc.lists.linux-kernel
hello All;
Comments are mixed in below. I have already replied to Jon concerning
I2O which was rather lengthy so I will not comment again on I2O.
Jon 'maddog' Hall, USG Senior Leader wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Sometimes it is good to be on the road for four weeks. I get to come back
> and read the entire stream of conciousness, rather than get it a piece at
> a time.
>
> Here are some of my thoughts:
>
> Adam is right. While LI embraces the OSD concepts, it is not exclusive.
> We encourage people to be Open Source, but LI's main goal is to have them use
> the Linux(R) operating system as an alternative to Microsoft.
This places Linux in a rather fragile position.
Please refer to
http://www.internetworld.com/print/current/webdev/19981012-underdev.html
I quote a brief section:
<Begin Quote>
But Linux will fail if it is forced to serve the wrong goal. If,
instead of being a better tool to solve developers' needs, Linux
becomes the latest proxy for Microsoft's competitors, it will
fade into obscurity. This is where Apple, Borland, Novell,
Netscape, et al. went wrong. By becoming obsessed with
Microsoft instead of serving their customers, these companies
forgot that the point of making products is developing solutions
to real problems, not dinging the largest competitor.
<End Quote>
>
> Second, there is nothing that would stop someone from developing a binary-only
> loadable device driver today, as long as they did it from scratch and did not
> use any GPLed code. Difficult, yes. Impossible, no.
I agree.
>
> Third, while UDI does have the capability of allowing binary-only drivers
> to be generated and distributed, its larger capability is to allow the same
> APIs to go across operating systems. Therefore people who write device drivers
> for *BSD or SPARC or Digital Unix will also be writing them for Linux. This
> is a win-win situation.
It is not a win-win situation when you consider I2O in the picture.
Currently there is no way for Linux to incorporate I2O support.
Please refer to
http://www.sco.com/udi/i2o.html
pay particular attention to the section on Combining UDI and I2O.
>
> Fourth, if you think that a hardware company will sit around waiting for
> Linux developers to volunteer to write their device drivers on products which
> often have a six month (or less) lifetime...this is highly unlikely. But
> to allow a company to develop a device driver for all OSs at the same time,
> and allow them to distribute it either in source or binary (or both) is a win.
I would agree with your statement. We need to educate the hardware
companies
to "seed" Linux developers with hardware before release so that both a
Linux native
driver under GNU GPL and an UDI driver under GNU LGPL may be written,
tested, and
ready for release with the hardware. The benefits of open source have
been documented.
The peer review of source code improves the quality and performance of
the software.
By seeding the Linux Developer Community prior to release would be a win
for the
company also, it would also be a win for all OSes. OpenSource native and
UDI device
drivers, albeit the native would be under GNU GPL and the UDI under GNU
LGPL.
It is that very nature of products which have a "six month or less
lifetime"
that would lead the hardware vendor to slap a driver together which
offers
poor performance, or just plain does not work. This would be no
different than
what we currently have today. Anyone who has installed Windows lately
understands
this. After the market lifetime of a product has passed what incentive
is there for
the hardware vendor to keep updating the device driver?
The end-user is not going to blame the hardware vendor about the driver
he will blame Linux/*BSD/Solaris/HP-UX/IRIX/etc.
>
> Fifth, if you look at the companies listed on the web page, you will see that
> most of them are now LI members:
>
> o SCO
> o Compaq
> o Sun
> o Adaptec
>
> with others becoming more "Linux minded" by the day:
>
> o Intel
> o IBM
>
> If you don't believe the last one, remember "Apache"....and I met six IBMers
> at ISPcon who were bandishing penguins on the IBM stand.
I do remember the IBM and Apache deal. The currency of that agreement
was source
code from IBM with allowed Apache to run better under Winnt. There was a
clear
exchange of source code for support from the Apache developers. I have
repeatedly
asked since the original UDI article appeared what was going to be the
currency
of any agreement between Project UDI and the Linux Developer Community.
I again state that it is extremely unwise to accept the open hand of UDI
while the other hand is resting on the binary-only sword of I2O.
Contrary to Kevin Quick's statement that the UDI hand may belong to a
different
division than the I2O hand, both hands are connected to the same head.
Since we are remembering Apache and IBM, are we also allowed to remember
the SCO marketing letter sent to Linux Users? The marketing letter which
blasted
Linux as "unstable", and we could upgrade to SCO for some large amount
of money.
The very same letter which Redhat place on their Web Site.
We are being asked to suddenly trust these companies which have
"suddenly seen
the light" and found "redemption" in supporting Linux. There needs to be
give and take on both sides. However, in my opinion I only see the other
side
taking and giving very little or nothing in return.
It does not benefit the OpenSource or Linux Communities to "sell their
souls"
for short-term gains/benefits.
>
> Sixth, both several months ago and recently I talked with people from Intel
> about I2O, and while they have promised this before, at least they are still
> saying that the specification will be made public. Compaq's own engineers
> have told me that this is the intent also.
Please refer to my previous reply concerning I2O. I will not repeat it
here.
If someone would like to receive a copy of that reply please send me
private
e-mail and I will send you a copy.
>
> Seventh, the Linux and Open Source community will speak with their dollars,
> as they always have. Distributions that are all Open Source will remain
> so, because that is what their customers want. And when the hardware vendors
> wonder why their competitors are outselling them two to one, it will be
> painfully obvious there are customers who are unwilling to go to a web site,
> or load yet another CD-ROM to install proprietary drivers, and those customers
> will not be wanting to buy hardware with proprietary drivers when there are
> Open Source alternatives.
I agree that both communities will speak with their dollars.
I would also purpose that both communities consider expanding the scope
of open software to include open hardware. I have been investigating
this
already. Expand it to include mainboard/motherboard design, peripheral
card
designs that are open and licensed in such a way that anyone may produce
them
and that they can never be taken "private".
>
> Distributions that do have proprietary software in them will probably continue
> to have it, and may incorporate binary-only drivers. Customers will chose
> whether or not to buy these distributions.
This goes back to my original posting concerning Project UDI.
If the distributions which include binary-only drivers fail, will the
Linux
Community not be labeled as "non-supportive", "contrary", etc?
>
> I will be happy to talk to the UDI and the I2O people, hopefully at the same
> time. I may be able to kill two birds with one stone. It may take me a few
> days, but I will.
I am not sure to whom you are referring. If you referring to the
representatives
of Intel, SCO, etc that are involved in both Project UDI and I2O I would
approach that cautiously.
Remember the old proverb: Keep your friends close but keep your enemies
closer.
The hard part of course being able to determine who are the friends and
who are
the enemies.
>
> md
> --
>
> Jon "maddog" Hall
> (R)Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds in the United States and other
> countries.
--
Terry L. Ridder
Blue Danube Software (Blaue Donau Software)
"We do not write software, we compose it."
entertaining angels
by the light of my computer screen
24-7 you wait for me
entertaining angels
while the night becomes history
host of heaven, sing over me
==Entertaining Angels==Newsboys
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: terr...@tbcnet.com (Terry L Ridder)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the UDI folks?: Killing two birds with one stone
Date: 1998/10/14
Message-ID: <36244942.101129BD@tbcnet.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 401029412
Approved: g...@greenie.muc.de
Sender: muc.de!l-linux-kernel-owner
References: <9810140627.AA06563@shaman.zk3.dec.com>
Organization: Blue Danube Software
Newsgroups: muc.lists.linux-kernel
Jon Maddog Hall wrote:
>
> Terry,
>
> A fine reading of the document on the web pages. However, I still prefer
> to actually talk to the committee and see what they say at this time.
>
> md
If you do get the chance to talk with the committee I would like to join
you if at all possible.
I would need some notice since as of late I have been tied up dealing
with lawyers, doctors, more lawyers, court dates, etc.
--
Terry L. Ridder
Blue Danube Software (Blaue Donau Software)
"We do not write software, we compose it."
entertaining angels
by the light of my computer screen
24-7 you wait for me
entertaining angels
while the night becomes history
host of heaven, sing over me
==Entertaining Angels==Newsboys
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: h...@zk3.dec.com (Jon Maddog Hall)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the UDI folks?: Killing two birds with one stone
Date: 1998/10/14
Message-ID: <9810140728.AA06742@shaman.zk3.dec.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 401035903
Approved: g...@greenie.muc.de
Sender: muc.de!l-linux-kernel-owner
Newsgroups: muc.lists.linux-kernel
>> Here are some of my thoughts:
>>
>> Adam is right. While LI embraces the OSD concepts, it is not exclusive.
>> We encourage people to be Open Source, but LI's main goal is to have them use
>> the Linux(R) operating system as an alternative to Microsoft.
>
>This places Linux in a rather fragile position.
>Please refer to
>
>http://www.internetworld.com/print/current/webdev/19981012-underdev.html
>
>I quote a brief section:
>
><Begin Quote>
>
>But Linux will fail if it is forced to serve the wrong goal. If,
>instead of being a better tool to solve developers' needs, Linux
>becomes the latest proxy for Microsoft's competitors, it will
>fade into obscurity. This is where Apple, Borland, Novell,
>Netscape, et al. went wrong. By becoming obsessed with
>Microsoft instead of serving their customers, these companies
>forgot that the point of making products is developing solutions
>to real problems, not dinging the largest competitor.
>
><End Quote>
I am really tired of having to explain to people that I was basically quoting
what Linus Torvalds has said many, many times in speeches: "Alternative
to Microsoft", an "alternative operating system". I did not say why it
was an alternative, or why people would agree it was an alternative
(superiority of code?), because the letter was NOT ABOUT THAT.
Normally I answer that LI's goal is simply to "promote Linux". And quite
frankly Nate Zelnick, the author of the article that you are quoting is
dead wrong about Linus. ANYONE who has ever heard him speak knows that.
>>
>> Third, while UDI does have the capability of allowing binary-only drivers
>> to be generated and distributed, its larger capability is to allow the same
>> APIs to go across operating systems. Therefore people who write device drivers
>> for *BSD or SPARC or Digital Unix will also be writing them for Linux. This
>> is a win-win situation.
>
>It is not a win-win situation when you consider I2O in the picture.
>Currently there is no way for Linux to incorporate I2O support.
I have not only read them, but I have had long talks with Michael LoBue,
who is the head of the SIG, and the SIG representative from Intel. Both of
them have told me that the issue of the specification being closed is a
temporary thing. Maybe they were lying, but I just called Micheal's office
and asked for an appointment tomorrow (I am flying out to San Fransico), and
I will see what he says now.
>It is that very nature of products which have a "six month or less
>lifetime"
>that would lead the hardware vendor to slap a driver together which
>offers
>poor performance, or just plain does not work. This would be no
>different than
>what we currently have today. Anyone who has installed Windows lately
>understands
>this. After the market lifetime of a product has passed what incentive
>is there for
>the hardware vendor to keep updating the device driver?
You made an assumption that people start working on the follow-on
product's driver either from scratch (bad assumption) or that they actually
wait until the current product is shipping before they work on the next
product. These days most large companies are working on two generations of
products, banking on the fact that the products which will let them build the
next generation of products are now being created themselves.
>The end-user is not going to blame the hardware vendor about the driver
>he will blame Linux/*BSD/Solaris/HP-UX/IRIX/etc.
>From where do you draw this assumption?
It is late, and I have a plane to catch early tomorrow. Bottom line (from
what I can see) is this:
The Linux community can be paranoid, not trusting anyone, and doing things
their own way (no I2O, no UDI), whack and hack everything from scratch.
That is o.k., if that is what they want.
Or they can be openly trusting, try to work with I2O, UDI and take the
chance of getting screwed.
Or they can go a middle route, of trying to work with these groups, but
keep an eye out. Take the best of what is offered.
I prefer the third alternative, since I think that there are some gains
that could be made. And to this goal I will try to see Michael LoBue
tomorrow. I may not succeed in seeing him, since it is short notice for
an appointment, but I will try.
md
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: terr...@tbcnet.com (Terry L Ridder)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the UDI folks?: Killing two birds with one stone
Date: 1998/10/14
Message-ID: <3624673C.3545EDD2@tbcnet.com>
X-Deja-AN: 401064886
Approved: g...@greenie.muc.de
Sender: muc.de!l-linux-kernel-owner
References: <9810140728.AA06742@shaman.zk3.dec.com>
Organization: Blue Danube Software
Newsgroups: muc.lists.linux-kernel
Jon Maddog Hall wrote:
>
Terry L. Ridder wrote:
Jon Maddog Hall wrote:
> >> Here are some of my thoughts:
> >>
> >> Adam is right. While LI embraces the OSD concepts, it is not
> >> exclusive. We encourage people to be Open Source,
> >> but LI's main goal is to have them use
> >> the Linux(R) operating system as an alternative to Microsoft.
> >
> >This places Linux in a rather fragile position.
> >Please refer to
> >
> >http://www.internetworld.com/print/current/webdev/19981012-underdev.html
> >
> >I quote a brief section:
> >
> ><Begin Quote>
> >
> >But Linux will fail if it is forced to serve the wrong goal. If,
> >instead of being a better tool to solve developers' needs, Linux
> >becomes the latest proxy for Microsoft's competitors, it will
> >fade into obscurity. This is where Apple, Borland, Novell,
> >Netscape, et al. went wrong. By becoming obsessed with
> >Microsoft instead of serving their customers, these companies
> >forgot that the point of making products is developing solutions
> >to real problems, not dinging the largest competitor.
> >
> ><End Quote>
>
> I am really tired of having to explain to people that I was basically
> quoting
> what Linus Torvalds has said many, many times in speeches: "Alternative
> to Microsoft", an "alternative operating system". I did not say why it
> was an alternative, or why people would agree it was an alternative
> (superiority of code?), because the letter was NOT ABOUT THAT.
>
> Normally I answer that LI's goal is simply to "promote Linux". And quite
> frankly Nate Zelnick, the author of the article that you are quoting is
> dead wrong about Linus. ANYONE who has ever heard him speak knows that.
>
> >>
> >> Third, while UDI does have the capability of allowing binary-only
> >> drivers
> >> to be generated and distributed, its larger capability is to allow the
> >> same
> >> APIs to go across operating systems. Therefore people who write
> >> device drivers
> >> for *BSD or SPARC or Digital Unix will also be writing them for Linux.
> >> This is a win-win situation.
> >
> >It is not a win-win situation when you consider I2O in the picture.
> >Currently there is no way for Linux to incorporate I2O support.
>
> I have not only read them, but I have had long talks with Michael LoBue,
> who is the head of the SIG, and the SIG representative from Intel.
> Both of them have told me that the issue of the specification being
> closed is a temporary thing. Maybe they were lying, but I just called
> Micheal's office and asked for an appointment tomorrow
> (I am flying out to San Fransico), and I will see what he says now.
It is not Michael LoBue or the SIG representative from Intel
that can release the I2O specification. The Steering Committee
must first approve such a release and than 51 out of the 67 Contributing
members of I2O Sig must approve it. That is straight from the
I2O Sig "charter". They can say whatever they want but if the
Contributing Members vote down such a release there is nothing the
Steering Committee can do about it. There is also the option that
the Steering Committee would never approve such a release and
the Contributing members do not have to vote.
>
> >It is that very nature of products which have a "six month or less
> >lifetime"
> >that would lead the hardware vendor to slap a driver together which
> >offers
> >poor performance, or just plain does not work. This would be no
> >different than
> >what we currently have today. Anyone who has installed Windows lately
> >understands
> >this. After the market lifetime of a product has passed what incentive
> >is there for
> >the hardware vendor to keep updating the device driver?
>
> You made an assumption that people start working on the follow-on
> product's driver either from scratch (bad assumption) or that they
> actually wait until the current product is shipping before they
> work on the next product. These days most large companies are working
> on two generations of products, banking on the fact that the products
> which will let them build the next generation of products are now
> being created themselves.
I did not make that assumption. I have clients who are doing basically
what you have described, working two generations of product at the same
time. Even in this environment the device drivers are an afterthought,
just slap something together. They take the previous products device
driver, which barely worked, change it for the product they are working
on, barely test it, and ship it. Do customers complain, yes they surely
do.
Does it make a difference? Meetings are scheduled, held, and lectures
given about development needs to "get their act together". Development
argues that marketing better start allowing for longer lead times so
development is able to correct the device drivers and test them longer.
The cycle repeats itself over and over again. :-(
> >The end-user is not going to blame the hardware vendor about the driver
> >he will blame Linux/*BSD/Solaris/HP-UX/IRIX/etc.
>
> >From where do you draw this assumption?
>
> It is late, and I have a plane to catch early tomorrow. Bottom line
> (from what I can see) is this:
>
> The Linux community can be paranoid, not trusting anyone, and
> doing things their own way (no I2O, no UDI), whack and hack
> everything from scratch.
> That is o.k., if that is what they want.
>
> Or they can be openly trusting, try to work with I2O, UDI and take the
> chance of getting screwed.
>
> Or they can go a middle route, of trying to work with these groups, but
> keep an eye out. Take the best of what is offered.
There is a fourth alternative:
The Project UDI people and the I2O people get together and I2O
becomes open and public now.
Just as IBM opened up giving source code to the Apache developer
in exchange for supporting Apache for IBM.
There must be a currency of trust, and that currency is that I2O
becomes open and public. Not available publicly under "reasonable
terms",
but public, licensing fees, no royality fees, no NDA's.
>
> I prefer the third alternative, since I think that there are some gains
> that could be made. And to this goal I will try to see Michael LoBue
> tomorrow. I may not succeed in seeing him, since it is short notice for
> an appointment, but I will try.
>
> md
I wish you the best if and when you get to meet with him.
--
Terry L. Ridder
Blue Danube Software (Blaue Donau Software)
"We do not write software, we compose it."
entertaining angels
by the light of my computer screen
24-7 you wait for me
entertaining angels
while the night becomes history
host of heaven, sing over me
==Entertaining Angels==Newsboys
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|