Messages in this thread | | | From | Andrew Mileski <> | Subject | Re: CONFIG_PNP: Please change the name | Date | Sun, 17 Mar 1996 18:26:58 -0500 (EST) |
| |
>> Don't pin judgement on the Linux project when you're using an >> INFERIOR Plug-and-Play implementation on a lame OS like Windows95 >> or DOS. >> >> But *DO* voice your opinions on what you *WANT* the Linux >> implementation to do/not do. I'm *ALWAYS* open for suggestions. >> >If you read the chain my response was to a hardware developer >who solicited questions about the pitfalls of PnP at the time >I had the problems Linux did not have PnP, and your implementation >may work the majority of the time but I do not believe you are >an all knowing being and I am sure that problems will be found.
I apologize if I offended - it was not at all intentional.
My intent was to LET THE WORLD EXACTLY exactly what you stated above, as I realized it too (I *did* follow the thread and read everything).
It seems not everyone out there was getting the complete picture.
ALL: General discussion on PnP should likely be taken to the PnP list (see http://www.redhat.com/pnp/).
Thanks for the comments!
-- Andrew E. Mileski -- -------------------------------------------------------------- mailto:dmtech@magi.com http://www.redhat.com/~aem/ "The best programmers are lazy", so I'm told. I haven't gotten around to seeing if it is true or not though.
| |