> > > If there wasn't a parallel port driver in 2.0, what do all of our
> > > printers talk to? My printer hooks up to a parallel port, and I can use
> > > it under Linux at /dev/lp1, so to me, there is a parallel port driver.
> >
> > >From your logic, one could conclude that 2.0.x contains a
> > graphics driver because I can see graphics on my screen when I
> > run X windows or SVGAlib applications. Therefore the kernel MUST
> > have a video driver.
> >
> > 2.0.x has what is called "Parallel Printer Support". It is NOT
> > Parallel port support, it is Parallel Printer Support. For
> > example, a PPA ZIP drive doesn't work with this driver, nor does
> > anything else, but a printer (or devices that behave as though
> > they were a printer). There is no EPP/ECP support in 2.0.x
> > either.
>
> Guys, cool down! This is a nomenclature debate. Nomenclature is
> arbitrary.
Roger, I missed a smiley at the end of the first paragraph.
Aside from that, the post was meant to inform, not to flame.
> One camp says "the 2.0 driver drives my printer through the parallel
> port so I call it a parallel port driver", the other camp says, "well
> it only drives printers so you should call it a printer driver".
>
> Sure. Let me say that par port/printer is often confused, and that
> lots of people think of it as a parallel port driver. Technically they
> are wrong. Let them be wrong.
Sure. Again, it was meant to be informative, and not to have a
negative tinge.
-- Mike A. Harris - Computer Consultant - Linux advocateEscape from the confines of Microsoft's operating systems and push your PC to it's limits with LINUX - a real OS. http://www.redhat.com
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html