back to list| Mailing List os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com Archived Message #5489 |
back to list |
|
|---|
Lewis G Rosenthal writes:I agree. It should be as inclusive as possible, and backward supportive of older architectures.
Hi Lewis, I'm up for this!
I'd like to revive this thread (right here, on this list, please), and solicit comments concerning the following:
* Viability of a new driver project;
Would have to somehow include PCMCIA cards (I still use a T20, although it will be replaced with a T4x at some point, which has the builtin card)
Okay. There should be some others who are code-capable. There are many other tasks which do not require direct programming experience or talent.* Available talent;
No programming skills, I'm afraid :(
Agreed, though financial support of the coder(s) may be required at some point (depending upon how much volunteer effort is involved).* Financial needs;
Ideally free :) I'd pay a similar fee to SNAP.
Some manufacturers have licensing issues regarding redistribution of their drivers. In a wrapper solution - and I tend to agree with Stan that wrappers may not be the best approach, though leaving the device driver coding to the manufacturers may solve a myriad of problems - it may be best to provide a script for downloading a given Win32 driver from the manufacturer site, extracting the necessary files, and moving on from there. I see this as a possible workaround to any redistribution issues.* Legal issues surrounding code, whether in a wrapper or something
akin to SNAP;
I don't think there are any real issues about wrapping drivers, are there? It isn't as though anyone would be charging for the drivers, just for the wrapper portion (which would be OS/2 code).
SNAP technology is applicable across the board, from video to sound to networking. See http://www.scitechsoft.com/products/dev/sdk_home.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SciTech_SNAP. That's the beauty of it. I just don't know whether the current owners of the code are interested in either licensing it or even developing for OS/2.* Possibility of licensing SNAP;
I'd love that, but isn't SNAP graphics? I thought we were talking about WiFi drivers...
My thoughts, as well.* Demand for a second (competing) project;
Well, if we aren't getting satisfaction from the existing project, it may be necessary.
Stan seems to think that such a project should be hosted by Netlabs. I don't see the interest there, and Adrian may be averse to the idea entirely (I haven't actually asked, so I am speculating, here). I tend to think that this could go in one of two directions: Either GenMAC development gets a boost from the competition or it ceases, should a different project progress to the point where it could support all of GenMAC's then-current devices. As for XWLAN, we would want (IMO) to be able to speak to it just as GenMAC does, so I agree, there should be no impact on that project one way or the other.* Possible impact - positive or negative - on GenMAC, XWLAN, and Netlabs
It may halt development on GenMAC, it shouldn't affect XWLAN, since that works with whatever driver, I have no idea how Netlabs would react.
Thanks for posting (everyone).I'm willing to set up a forum topic for this on warptech.info (I need to revive that site, anyway) or even devote webspace to Trac, MediaWiki, Mantis, SVN, or something else perhaps more appropriate to the task. Right now, I'd just like to brainstorm a little. If it comes out that we simply don;t have enough interested or able bodies, then so be it. I'd just like to explore the idea, first...
|
Subscribe: Feed,
Digest,
Index. Unsubscribe Mail to ListMaster |