From owner-freebsd-hardware Wed Mar 10 8:18:28 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Received: from wolf.com (ns1.wolf.com [207.137.58.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24D921532D for ; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 08:18:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dan@wolf.com) Received: (from dan@localhost) by wolf.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id IAA12238; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 08:17:58 -0800 Message-ID: <19990310081758.B12209@ns.wolf.com> Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 08:17:58 -0800 From: dan@wolf.com To: Richard Cownie , freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: PCI WinModem References: <199903101606.LAA20476@lonesome.ma.ikos.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2 In-Reply-To: <199903101606.LAA20476@lonesome.ma.ikos.com>; from Richard Cownie on Wed, Mar 10, 1999 at 11:06:17AM -0500 Sender: owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > Economically and technically, from my (admittedly meagre) experience > I'd say WinModem's are a neat solution - if you only run Windows > (like 95%+ of users). Don't knock it just because FreeBSD can't > support it (yet). Actually, I think the biggest gripe about winmodems is not that they require a MicroSloth OS to run (though that *definitely* bites!), but that the very idea of offloading basic peripheral functional processing from the peripheral (where these functions belong) to the host OS is a Very Bad Idea. Sure, they can function pretty well when you plug 'em into a WinBloze box, but that doesn't make a flawed concept any less flawed. That's about as logical as building in a security mechanism that the user can bypass by simply clicking the "Cancel" button. Of course no one would be so dumb as to do that... would they? Dan Mahoney dan@wolf.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hardware" in the body of the message