On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 09:10:37AM +0200, Hannes Gredler wrote: > On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 02:20:56PM -0700, Guy Harris wrote: > | No, but your patch isn't there, either. > > b/c it has not yet been committed, i.e. i have working code;
I suspect Joerg is looking at writing working code for his proposal; if not, I'll look into it (and into adding the appropriate entries, and perhaps some *additional* entries, to the manuf file). > correct ... somebody has to do it collect all the MAC addresses, who will > do it The same person who would collect those addresses and wire them into code. > again, ask the question the other way ... why are more choices *bad* here; > following real-life logic here ... choice is always good; I don't consider "choice is always good" a true statement; sometimes choice is good, sometimes simplicity is good, and sometimes simplicity means "fewer choices". If mechanism A can do a job, I don't see any requirement for adding a second mechanism that can do the same job (programmers can register MAC addresses by adding entries to the manuf files, so mechanism A certainly does *that* job).
