> In article <linux.kernel.ADZ0XCsW4C@khim.sch57.msk.ru>,
> Khimenko Victor <khim@sch57.msk.ru> wrote:
> >In <Pine.GSO.4.02A.9810231326030.15522-100000@red.seas.upenn.edu> Vladimir Dergachev (vladimid@red.seas.upenn.edu) wrote:
>
> >> Writing a driver for WinModems can be an interesting exercise in itself.
> >
> >Especially since such thing can not be done reliable in "standard Linux".
> >Only in RT-Linux :-((
>
> Oh, I'd bet a winmodem would work better in Linux than it would on
> Windows, since no matter what bad things you might say about Linux's
> multitasking you'd still have to agree that it's better than Windows.
>
> >> This would require (probably) some mathematics and some knowledge of how
> >> to do dsp processing.
> >
> >Plus you'll need to do a lot of reverse ingeneering :-))
>
> Foo on that. If the people who sell Winmodems want to get their
> hot little fingers into the Linux market, they can write their own
> device drivers (UDI, anyone?) and fix the bugs themself.
>
> ____
> david parsons \bi/ This is strictly my opinion, of course.
> \/
My expecation is that the folks selling Winmodems have _zero_ interest in
getting in to the Linux market. Since they already don't care about the
NT, Mac, Be, SCO, QNX, or OS/2 markets (not necessarily in that order), I
doubt they are specifically avoiding Linux.
Consider the apparent fact that every one of these things is completely
different (even between revisions), with nonstandard hardware and software
and no published documentation. Consider also that no published
documentation can be a direct side effect of rather poor unpublished
documentation.
My suspicion is that none of these products (well excepting a few. IBM's
Mwave, perhaps?) are intended to be salable for more then the few months
when that particular product type is "hot". They don't _have_ to be proper
designs, they don't _have_ to multi-task well, etc., all they have to be
is A) cheap, and B) easy to update for the latest "hot" feature. They are
being designed in direct accordance with Sturgeon's Law.
As far as I can see, there is no point whatsoever in worrying about
supporting these things. As soon as some company decides to do it _right_,
making a design that's useful, innovative, and effective, at the very
least you'll see it running under '95 and NT to start with, and you can
approach the company from there. If they don't publish documentation, then
they aren't the one.
-- Kenneth Albanowski (kjahds@kjahds.com, CIS: 70705,126)
- 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.tux.org/lkml/