> On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> > On Sat, 24 Jan 1998 hpa@transmeta.com (H. Peter Anvin) wrote:
> > > /dev/dsp16 seems reasonable to me, and seems to have been the intent
> > > given the above defines.
> >
> > /dev/dsp16 is fine for the first device, but the dsp port on the second
> > channel/card then becomes /dev/dsp161, which is somewhat unsatisfactory.
> > /dev/dsp16a, /dev/dsp16b works, but is rather unstandard.
> Why not /dev/dsp16-2 (not that it's a very important issue -- how many
> computers have two sound cards)?
>
Bielieve it or not I've seen more than one machine with a sb and a gus.
Gerhard Mack<gmack@imag.net>
--As a computer I find your faith in technology amusing.