On 27/04/05 07:22 -0700, David Brownell wrote: > I don't see major vendors wanting to move away from "closed" models > at the lower end, or in fact whereever they have the power to dictate > customer "preferences". (The latter case is also known as a "market > failure", except by radical corporatists...) But for higher end products, > or when customers truly have (or need!!) choices, then "open" is more > usually the answer. Indeed. Really, my point was that massive userland based configuration is better suited to systems with known configurations and vendors motivated to spend the time and expense to tune the system. As the system configuration opens up, it becomes less likely that the end user will be willing to go to the same effort. When you hit the desktop/laptop market, only the very uber of geeks will even consider it. Which is why I think that userland tuning should be an option, and not mandatory. A wide majority of the users across the Linux spectrum might not care what the wake up latency of their NIC is, but I think that there are enough that do to make a userland configuration framework useful. -- Jordan Crouse Senior Linux Engineer AMD - Personal Connectivity Solutions Group <www.amd.com/embeddedprocessors>
