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 is > > the job of the driver. (Preferably without each driver author altering the > > 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. Per
