Would you not get a little too wedded to i386 and lose a little portability
to other platforms, such as G5, by using windows drivers?

JTNelson

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brian Buhrow" <buhrow@lothlorien.nfbcal.org>
To: "Greywolf" <greywolf@starwolf.com>; "Steven M. Bellovin"
<smb@research.att.com>
Cc: "Wojciech Puchar" <wojtek@tensor.3miasto.net>; "emanuel stiebler"
<emu@ecubics.com>; <port-i386@NetBSD.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 3:16 PM
Subject: Re: windows drivers on netbsd?


> I'd wager that if an emulation layer can be written for Windows binary
> device drivers, we'll learn a lot more about how devices work and, as a
> consequence, it will then become easier to write native drivers for many
> more devices.
> The question is, how hard will it be to write a device driver
> environment that would actually work?  I imagine certain classes of
drivers
> would need to be attacked first.  I.e. USB drivers and then network
> drivers, etc.  Unfortunately, network drivers are probably the easiest,
but
> the least interesting because there are already a lot of native network
> drivers for many network cards under NetBSD.  More interesting, to me, at
> least, would be Windows drivers for exotic USB devices.
> -Brian
>
> On Nov 6, 11:54am, Greywolf wrote:
> } Subject: Re: windows drivers on netbsd?
> } Thus spake Steven M. Bellovin ("SMB> ") sometime Today...
> }
> } SMB> We all agree that native NetBSD drivers are much better.  But
they're
> } SMB> not always available, either because no one is interested in
writing
> } SMB> one or because the manufacturer won't release enough information to
> } SMB> permit one to be written.
> }
> } The former is a sad state of affairs, and a pity, really; the latter
> } is probably becoming increasingly more common and, while frustrating,
> } is still a much better reason for adapting to other drivers and letting
> } them be run.
> }
> } --*greywolf;
> } --
> } NetBSD: SIMMs Like Good Code.
> >-- End of excerpt from Greywolf
>
>