From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Lucio De Re <lucio@proxima.alt.za>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: usbd - revision (Was: [9fans] USB developments)
Message-ID: <20040116123241.R25947@cackle.proxima.alt.za>
References: <3451a36c456129ca677defc7c9d8658b@plan9.escet.urjc.es> <003e01c3dc1a$c619dcf0$8201a8c0@cc77109e>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <003e01c3dc1a$c619dcf0$8201a8c0@cc77109e>; from Bruce Ellis on Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 09:23:16PM +1100
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 12:32:42 +0200
Topicbox-Message-UUID: babd22ea-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 09:23:16PM +1100, Bruce Ellis wrote:
>
> usb ends in tears because the vendors are quite happy to
> send undocumented stuff to undocumented ports.  and it's
> fine 'cause they have a windows driver for it.
>
Maybe I'm just farting in the wind, but imagine that Plan 9 had a
USB infrastructure that "just worked".  So much so that device
vendors would not need to provide device drivers for their units,
they could rely on Plan 9 to supply the driver on condition they
tighten up slightly on their design.  To a clear, simple spec.

Wouldn't that annoy Microsoft?

++L