Far be it for me to argue with the master of all that compiles. This
discussion is turning into a philosophical one about the validity of
features, just like the whole GGI mess. For ANY interface that is
important, such as PnP compatibility, it needs some kernel code. Saying
that M$ did it wrong is only an excuse that you can use for while.
Yes, M$ does espouse the epitomy of crap, BUT that crap is who we're
trying to run Linux on (unfortunately too many Costco, Circuit City, and
other wherehouse shops push these). I agree that the kernel is the wrong
place to put the kitchen sink, but we at least need a supply line and
drain! The kernel should have the minimal amount of code needed to
support the hardware in an efficient and robust manner. Only if a
particular extension can be proven worthy, should it too be included.
But, to attempt to dodge the PnP issue because of M$ bigotry, doesn't
get you running on those flawed devices. I hate M$ more than you do.
The kernel should have enough code to gracefully handle and detect PnP
devices, it DOESN'T need a full "find me an IRQ and IO range, and do
it non-invasively" implementation, but it needs enough to work.
--Perry
-- Perry Harrington Linux rules all OSes. APSoft () email: perry@apsoft.com Think Blue. /\- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu