Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 17 Mar 1996 21:11:10 -0500 (EST) | From | Kenneth Albanowski <> | Subject | Re: CONFIG_PNP: Please change the name |
| |
On Sun, 17 Mar 1996, hab wrote:
> If you read the chain my response was to a hardware developer > who solicited questions about the pitfalls of PnP at the time > I had the problems Linux did not have PnP, and your implementation > may work the majority of the time but I do not believe you are > an all knowing being and I am sure that problems will be found. > My suggestion was to allow the Knowedgable "Power User" the > ability to overide automatic selections.
Hubert, please understand that PnP does _not_ soley consist of automatic selections. It consists of _software accessible_ selections, instead hardware accessible ones. Decisions still have to be made about who gets what, and they won't all be made for you. Additionally, have no fear that any such subsystem for Linux will let you set aside ranges of resources as used by other non-PnP devices.
> Especially since they > may not depend on only one OS. In my business I am expected to > answer about all OS's. I routinely suggest different OS's depending > on the user and the application. A major advantage of Linux is > the freely available source code (If you can read it and the mind > of the developer). But one software solution alone can not give > the flexability of carefully designed hardware. The software may > provide work arounds but the hardware engineer can make software > alot easier.
PnP is not a software solution, it is a hardware solution. It is a hardware solution that _lets_ the software take part in solving problems.
> Hubert Bahr > MsCpe
-- Kenneth Albanowski (kjahds@kjahds.com, CIS: 70705,126)
| |