From: Steffen Seeger <s.seeger@physik.tu-chemnitz.de>
  To  : ggi-develop@eskimo.com
  Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 09:26:28 +0200 (MEST)

Re: UDI proposed specs released for review

> On Thu, 8 Apr 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > I don't think we should allow proprietary unices to shape Linux into
> > another proprietary unix.  If they succeed they may not win, but we are
> > sure likely to lose.
> 
> Linux needs something like the UDI.  Device driver programming under 
> it sucks, binary drivers or no binary drivers.  I'll reserve my 
> opinions as to whether the UDI is the right way to go until I'm done
> reading it, but so far it looks like the UDI people have done us all
> a favor by making a very detailed, solid standard.  The only thing
> that could spoil it is if they try to make the API a purchasable 
> item.  If they open the API and the community is free to implement 
> it and the standard is readily available, then I have no problems
> with it and would like to see Linux use it.  I hadn't heard of
> it before now so I don't know what the plans are for the UDI's 
> release terms.

Did you read their review process notes? Anyone is free to become a
voting member of their commitee just by attending the meetings.

> Personally I'll never run a driver I don't have source code for,
> but that's not what the UDI is all about.
> 
> P.S. A lot of the UDI looks very similar to what had to be done
> for the KGI OS interface, it would be eerie if not for the fact that
> it's only logical for them to share a lot of traits.

Yes. I downloaded the 0.80 specs some weeks ago, and its overall design
looks pretty much like what KGI did. They have no proposed document
for display drivers yet. I think of submitting KGI to them...
But first we need to have it running. :-)

> --
> P.C.M.C.I.A. stands for "Plastic Connectors May Crack If Adjusted"
> --
> Brian S. Julin

			Steffen

----------------- e-mail: seeger@physik.tu-chemnitz.de -----------------