From owner-freebsd-arch Fri Nov 8 23:12:36 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E611D37B401 for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 23:12:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from harmony.village.org (rover.bsdimp.com [204.144.255.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F4DA43E3B for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 23:12:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from localhost (warner@rover2.village.org [10.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id gA97CWpk035794 for ; Sat, 9 Nov 2002 00:12:33 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 00:12:25 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <20021109.001225.94555950.imp@bsdimp.com> To: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bluetooth From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <038501c286b2$5efb1890$52557f42@errno.com> References: <038501c286b2$5efb1890$52557f42@errno.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 2.1 on Emacs 21.2 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message: <038501c286b2$5efb1890$52557f42@errno.com> "Sam Leffler" writes: : > On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Sam Leffler wrote: : > > A bluetooth implementation that was not : > > tied to netgraph would be preferrable as freebsd users would get the : > > benefits of additional (non-freebsd users) working with the code. : > > : > : > NetBSD have their own bluetooth code that goes in /sys/dev/bluetooth. : > You are free to port that when (if) it's ready, in fact : > we are using netgraph/bluetooth specifically to not collide with that. : > : > <...netgraph PR deleted...> : > : : I don't want to see multiple instances of Bluetooth support in the system. : As you noted there's a netbsd implementation already. Having multiple : incompatible implementations of the same protocol stack is silly. If this : one is better than the netbsd one then great, but I want to see answers to : these questions. I'd go one step farther. I'd say that it would be insane to have more than one bluetooth stack for FreeBSD. I'd go farther and say that it would be insane to have more than one bluetooth stack for *BSD. Bluetooth is too big and specailized for there to be much benefit in competing stacks. I mean look how far the multiple ATM stacks got us. It was a dump idea to have more than one in the system, and now both aren't very supported. People had to beg and plead to get the drivers updated, and only one of the two stacks survived (if I read my commit mail correctly). And look at OLDCARD and NEWCARD. When both were being worked on, both suffered. OLDCARD got all the bug fixes and new features for a while when we'd be more ahead today if I'd ported NEWCARD to -stable and pc98 instead. Having two implementations there was more of a liability than an asset I sometimes think. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message