Jamie Webb <j@???> wrote:
> I don't think there's much risk of future
> hardware simply not working with Linux.
Gutmann's point is that the Hardware Functionality
Scan requires that device APIs be kept secret.
Linux driver developers would then be forced to
rely on reverse-engineering to provide support for
new devices.
The net effect would be fewer pieces of hardware
supported by the kernel, and longer delays before
support appears. Linux then looks less attractive
to the customer than Vista, neatly protecting MS's
market share.
> At the very least, the server market isn't just
> going to roll over.
I'll be very surprised if a similar specification
isn't developed for the next Windows Server
release. The Tyans and Supermicros of the world
are hardly likely to release products not
compatible with Windows Server.
MS is most under threat in the server market; I
can't see them passing up this opportunity to
limit their competitors' growth.
> The only danger is that newer multimedia stuff
> won't be available.
It'll be wider than that, if the full spec is
implemented. The article makes it clear that the
"content protection" functions will be active
whether you're using "premium content" or not.
Should sufficient numbers of hardware manufac-
turers reject this spec, then it'll probably sink
without trace. That will require cooperation
between a large number of companies, though, as
there's no MS equivalent in the hardware market.
Nick.
PS. The article has been updated, with quotes from
ATI, and expanded Sources and Footnotes
sections.
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt
--
Nick Chalk ................. once a Radio Designer
Confidence is failing to understand the problem.
