🚀 go-pugleaf

Gad, this is getting rediculous..!

In article <liuyu.715220479@kramden> liuyu@kramden.nyu.edu (Liuyu) writes:
>ckincy@mcs213c.cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy) writes:
>>You think Microsoft wrote the Herc driver for Windows?  Heh.  Yeah,
>>right.  Herc wrote it.  If Herc refuses to write an OS/2 driver, well
>>that's Herc screwing over their own customers, it's not IBM's fault.
>
>Prove it. 

I don't know for sure about the Hercules case, but there's alot of drivers
that come with Windows that has (c) Copyright xxxx My Corp., etc... in them.
Take a look with a sector editor/file viewer.

>
>Did Herc also write all the drivers for the tons of software that support Herc?
>IBM refuses to write driver for a standard from a competitor. It's like Lotus
>refuses to write a standard VGA driver for its 123. And it expects IBM to write
>it. It sure doesn't make any sense.
>
>>>Time to support all standards.
>
>>I agree.  Herc should support OS/2.  They don't.
>
>You got it backward! OS/2 should support all standards.


This is rediculous!  OS/2 is an operating system.  When a software company
writes software for OS/2 do they NOW have to write drivers for every video
card they want to support?  No.  There's a device independant interface.  So,
a company such as Hercules never would have to write more than one driver.

To me, writing one driver to support your hardware makes alot of sense, no?
Why should IBM (who may not know everything about the hardware (such as the
ET4000 problem with an UNDOCUMENTED register)) be responsible for suporting
competing hardware manufacturers products?  If you say for the "success of
OS/2" then that's fine and good, but I think you're wrong for placing the
total burden of development on IBM.  OS/2 makes it possible to do away with
having to write VGA, SVGA, 8514/a, XGA, and Herc drivers for someone's
software.  It also allows companies' hardware to be supported and still lets
the company know that their trade secrets are intact because they don't have
to publish the interface... they can just write the driver themselves.

OS/2 supports anything there is a driver out there for.  The driver
interface is standard.  So, in a sense, it does support all standards, and
any non-standard device that has a driver.  The amount of effort for one
comany to write one driver is trivial compared to the effort that it takes
one company to write 10 (20? 30??) drivers.  To me, it makes the most sense.

Another problem is just what to define as a standard... How about SVGA?
There's three (more?) predominant chip sets out there... does that make them
standards too?

Chris