Peter writes:

> > Arent you trying to make the OS do something it was never designed to
> > do? Writing drivers is a programming challenge. The OS is there to help
> > where it can, but no OS author can anticipate any and every piece of
> > hardware that is going to be attached to the machine in the future. That
> > the job of the driver. (Preferably without each driver author altering
> > OS to suit their own needs ;)
> Somehow I doubt that you need to teach me that writing drivers
> is a programming challenge or more trivialities and generalities
> about OS and driver structure ;)

I would not presume to teach you anything. I know that would be futile. I
was not debating detail with you - I know nothing of the detail. I was
discussing principle, and that I, and other well-meaning souls on this
list trying to help, happen to know a little about. The detail normally
follows from the priciple.

Please spare me from ridicule for voicing a legitimate point of
view. It does neither of us any favours, and tends to sour the atmosphere.

> I guess you have to accept that QDOS (SMS?) has a principal
> shortcoming, not an author dependant need, and should be
> improved.

As to my little jibe, it was a kindly nudge-wink in the direction of
Richard, relating to an upstream tributary of this discussion.
"Improvements"  to Qdos  is a very serious matter and should not be
undertaken lightly as it affects everyone.


Reply via email to