Messages in this thread | | | From | Andrew Mileski <> | Subject | Re: CONFIG_PNP: Please change the name | Date | Mon, 18 Mar 1996 21:14:45 -0500 (EST) |
| |
>Am am interested in hardware PnP problems. I know the Win95 software >is bad. I dont care about that. I thought maybe the original complaint >was of a flaw in the spec. As far as poor hardware implementations, we >wont be one of them.
Intel/Microsoft/et al. PnP specs comments:
1) The PnP-ISA design is clever, though I wish it was faster.
2) PnP-BIOS design leaves too many things as *optional*.
3) The PnP-COM spec is humourous - it is really tougher than it has any need to be.
4) ESCD shouldn't be a separate a system as it is.
5) The PnP-BOOT spec is well thought out - a conforming system would be neat (I've never seen - or heard of - one yet).
The more room you leave to wiggle in a spec, the more contingencies you must plan for, and the more problems you'll have.
-- 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.
| |