Comment UDI is not a GoodThing (Score 2) 130
In the near term, UDI might be appear to be a GoodThing (tm), mainly because there is the potential for more hardware support for vendors. However, UDI on Linux has two major flaws that can damage the entire community in the long term. BTW, this is based on the assumption that non-free closed-source drivers will proliferate under UDI.
The first is that UDI dictates how the driver architecture will work and behave. Kernel developers will lose the freedom to experiment with hardware interfaces to tweek the performance. Regardless of a common heritage, all UNIX-like systems are not created equal. A monolithic kernel behaves different from a micro kernel, and both can be tweeked differently. Just because a driver is a good design under one UNIX-like OS does not mean that it will be a good design under another UNIX-like OS.
Second, anything that promotes closed-source drivers in the Linux kernel (or *BSD kernel) is bad for the entire Linux movement. Device drivers are the most common source of instability in a OS kernel. If closed-source drivers become common, we will definitely begin to see articles in major magazines which complain about the instability of Linux, when really badly written 3rd party drivers are to blame. This will kill the reputation that Linux has developed for unmatched stability. (Don't believe me? Driver instability is the main reason why Windows 95 and NT is an unstable pig)
UDI helps other UNIX vendors much more than it helps the free software community. Let's avoid the temptation of the 'quick fix' if it involves giving up our main strength; our free-software roots.
The first is that UDI dictates how the driver architecture will work and behave. Kernel developers will lose the freedom to experiment with hardware interfaces to tweek the performance. Regardless of a common heritage, all UNIX-like systems are not created equal. A monolithic kernel behaves different from a micro kernel, and both can be tweeked differently. Just because a driver is a good design under one UNIX-like OS does not mean that it will be a good design under another UNIX-like OS.
Second, anything that promotes closed-source drivers in the Linux kernel (or *BSD kernel) is bad for the entire Linux movement. Device drivers are the most common source of instability in a OS kernel. If closed-source drivers become common, we will definitely begin to see articles in major magazines which complain about the instability of Linux, when really badly written 3rd party drivers are to blame. This will kill the reputation that Linux has developed for unmatched stability. (Don't believe me? Driver instability is the main reason why Windows 95 and NT is an unstable pig)
UDI helps other UNIX vendors much more than it helps the free software community. Let's avoid the temptation of the 'quick fix' if it involves giving up our main strength; our free-software roots.
