On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 11:17:51 +0200 (CEST), Guennadi Liakhovetski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:38:04 +0200 (CEST), Guennadi Liakhovetski <[EMAIL > > PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Hm, what, if someone needs both (no, I don't atm:-))? > > > > I do not see a plausible scenario of such a need. Do you? > > Well, the ub was written, because storage doesn't satisfy all needs, > right? So, there are cases where you need ub and NOT storage, or, at > least, where ub suits better. OTOH, you say, there are protocols, which > are not covered / will never be covered by ub? It's not a problem as long as ub handles well all devices it covers. In such a case it might as well be always configured on, as long as USB Storage is supported at all. As for the other point, about mappings to drivers, I'm a little too tired to discuss that at this time. It's a long story. -- Pete ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: IT Product Guide on ITManagersJournal Use IT products in your business? Tell us what you think of them. Give us Your Opinions, Get Free ThinkGeek Gift Certificates! Click to find out more http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/guidepromo.tmpl _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
