From owner-freebsd-hardware Wed Mar 10 10:50:50 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Received: from pegasus.com (unknown [209.84.70.244]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1489215190 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 10:50:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from richard@pegasus.com) Received: by pegasus.com (8.6.8/PEGASUS-2.2) id JAA26216; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 09:09:47 -1001 Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 09:09:47 -1001 From: richard@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk) Message-Id: <199903101910.JAA26216@pegasus.com> In-Reply-To: Richard Cownie "PCI WinModem's" (Mar 10, 12:23pm) X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92) To: freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: PCI WinModem's Sender: owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org } Dan Mahoney wrote: } >but my biggest argument is this: modem design is a highly technical } >issue requiring a great deal of specialized knowledge, and running } >a modem properly requires a lot of control over low-level issues, } } So you're saying it's difficult to make a WinModem driver that } works well. But is it impossible ? Or have the WinModem people } actually done their homework and made a good job of it ? I tend } to believe they wouldn't be shipping 10's of millions of these } things unless they worked pretty decently. If someone has hard } evidence (rather than theoretical, theological, and aesthetic } opinions) either way I'd be interested to hear it. Don't forget that many stripped-down Windows-specific devices don't lend themselves well to a multi-tasking environment. Also, there is a tradition in the freeware community of boycotting hardware with proprietary interfaces. I'm not certain that the winmodem fits that description, but it sounds like it might. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hardware" in the body of the message