[Note that I've set followups to comp.os.linux.hardware.]
>: >If we don't get support of new hardware, it will be more and more
>: >difficult to find a Linux-compatible computer. One of the reasons I
>: >used Linux in the first place is because it had support for all of my
>: I agree. What we need is support for plug and play. You will probably
>: say Plug and Play sucks, but it works fine on my win 95 installation.
> See, this is exactly what I"m talking about. WHY do we need plug and pray
you or I like it or not, new non-PnP hardware is becoming a rarity, so if
Linux DOESN'T support it, it'll become harder and harder to buy or build a
It might also be useful to distinguish between two different types of PnP
hardware: ISA-bus and PCI-bus. (I don't even know if the term "PnP" can
technically be applied to PCI boards, but the design goals and mentality
are similar, so I do.) Since PCI was designed with this sort of thing in
mind, PnP-type features are easy to implement on it. ISA bus was never
designed for it, and much of the controversy about PnP centers around ISA
PnP components. I say it's useful to split the discussion between these
simply because ISA bus is on the way out. I'm sure it'll still be
present for another year or two, at least, but there are increasing
(though still fairly small) numbers of PCI-based sound cards, modems,
etc. That trend will only accelerate with time, especially if there's
truth to the rumor I heard that the "Designed for WinXx" label can now
only be applied to machines with no installed ISA components. Anyhow,
the whole ISA PnP thing will become a bad memory before too terribly
long, leaving us with PCI and anything new the industry decides to throw
Only if you compile in support for it. I admit I haven't checked theQuote:> It just increases the size of the kernel.
latest development kernels, but I find it hard to believe that it's an
absolutely necessary part of the kernel. Of course, if you've got PnP
devices, leaving the PnP support out may not be an option; but if you're
so opposed to it that you'd prefer not to see that support at all, you've
presumably not bought any PnP devices, and so don't need it.
AFAIK, there's little or no correlation between PnP and the mostQuote:> It's helping along
> those companies that are manufacturing "non-standard" or "incompatible"
notorious of the non-standards out there -- the so-called WinModems and
GDI printers. In fact, since printers aren't ISA-bus components
themselves, they aren't really affected by PnP support, AFAIK, or at
least not support for PnP ISA cards. There are plenty of PnP modems that
are NOT WinModems, and I can think of some bizarre non-standard things
that predate PnP (like modem/sound cards based on IBM's Mwave DSP).
Does Microsoft get royalties on PnP hardware? I know they were involvedQuote:> Basically, you're helping MS if you buy plug and pray crap.
in the specification, but I don't know if they profit directly from it.
From what I gather, PnP itself works fairly well FOR CONVENTIONALQuote:> Besides, plug and pray is not known for its quality...
CONFIGURATIONS. Joe Schmoe adding a PnP modem to a PnP-aware
pre-assembled system built by a "name" manufacturer after PnP became
common usually doesn't have problems. It's when you get into unusual
configurations, like PCs with SCSI adapters or scientific data-acquisition
boards or whatnot, that you get problems. Especially when you throw in
the Win95 tendency to insist on configuring the hardware the way IT wants
to, without allowing overrides. My understanding is that the existing
Linux PnP support gives the user full control, so this last bit isn't an
issue for Linux PnP.
If you're claiming that PnP hardware tends to be of lower quality than
non-PnP hardware, well, that's a statistical correlation and will have
plenty of exceptions on both ends, so I don't think it's a useful basis
for deciding what Linux can or "should" support, even if the assertion is
true, which you haven't demonstrated.
Rod Smith Author of:
http://php.indiana.edu/~rodsmith "OS/2 Soundcard Summary"
NOTE: Remove "uceprotect" from address to e-mail me