From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: erik quanstrom Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 06:55:51 -0400 To: 9fans@9fans.net Message-ID: <378e2b704bf4fea392561a4c8e4639e3@mikro.quanstro.net> In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] [GSOC] plan9 which arch code to use? Topicbox-Message-UUID: e2bfb0e4-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Thu May 8 01:57:57 EDT 2014, lucio@proxima.alt.za wrote: > > would be nice to put all the hardware support together. > > That would be wonderful. But it does require resources to deal with > incompatibilities as well as different perception of value. My angle > her is that I'm mostly working with obsolete equiopment and I am > extremely reluctant to watch Plan 9 drop support for the hardware I > have in favour of hardware I cannot afford. > > I can see how one would approach this problem in a fair manner, but I > appreciate that the cost would be higher. For example, I'm using AC97 > audio on this workstation, after putting some trouble into fitting it > into the Bell Labs distribution (nothing much, in fact, still...). > Now, this is incompatible with the original Soundblaster stuff and no > one seems to care to deal with the incompatibilities. That's where > the community needs to be encouraged to take on low-benefit projects. > ; lc /sys/src/9/pc/audio* audioac97.c audioac97m.c audiohda.c audiosb16.c - erik