Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 15:09:44 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: dennis@etinc.com (dennis) Cc: witr@rwwa.com, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: R. Winslow's Ignorance Message-ID: <199601302209.PAA07578@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199601301657.LAA14367@etinc.com> from "dennis" at Jan 30, 96 11:57:08 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Your idea of a driver and mine are clearly different. Design a board, > write a comprehensive (you'll probably have to look this word up) portable > driver that runs in MSDOS, 4 unixes and Windows, write frame relay, > X.25 and PPP protocol engines, several manuals, and an extensive API > and call me when your done. Most likely it wont work. Then when you > get it so companies are willing to spend good money to run in 24 X 7 > with conifidence...call me again. > > Idiot. Actually, Dennis, if you are willing to accept 2 instead 4 UNIXes, the comprehensive driver is called "ODI". It would be 4, but the BSD and Linux camps are heavily into NIH in networking code (with the result that the BSD camp kicks butt on most commercial systems, but it's a trade off that the user should be able to choose and can't). The X.25 and PPP are similarly available as protocol modules that run in an ODI framework, though they would have to be rewritten, since they are typically Novell supplied only with Novell OS's. NDIS falls into the same category, with slightly less scope (DOS, Windows, and NT instead fo DOS, Windows, and UNIX). So it's nmot the idea that's flawed, it's the implementation. (If anyone is preparing to complain about performace, let me point out that anything that works is better than anything that doesn't). Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199601302209.PAA07578>