🚀 go-pugleaf

mind@ripco.com (Dr. Who) wrote:

>Brian Mueller (mulder78@ix.netcom.com) wrote:

[snip]

>: I agree. What we need is support for plug and play. You will probably
>: say Plug and Play sucks, but it works fine on my win 95 installation.
>
>See, this is exactly what I"m talking about.  WHY do we need plug and pray
>support?  It just increases the size of the kernel.  It's helping along
>those companies that are manufacturing "non-standard" or "incompatible"
>hardware.  Basically, you're helping MS if you buy plug and pray crap.
>Besides, plug and pray is not known for its quality...

PnP requires a configuration manager. If memory serves, PnP devices
are disabled at power up. Systems with PnP BIOS have a small
configuration manager which enables boot critical devices, but from
there, an OS configuration manager is meant to over.

If you don't want devices to move around or self allocate resources
like they tend to do in Windows implementations, then write the OS
configuration manager to allow you to lock down devices. Even have it
ignore all new devices until you decide where they should live ;
Within the capability of the manufacturer's implementation, of course.


Once written and debugged, I think it's better then having to pull the
system to bits and change jumpers/switches.

In short, don't judge the technology based on current implementations
of it. It will get better... :)

  __   __   _______________________________
 //)) //)) | Richard RUDEK. MicroDek.      | 
//\\ //\\  | Chatswood, Sydney. Australia. | 
           `-------------------------------'