[Prism54-users] Re: [Prism54-devel] Prism54 development update

[Feyd]

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 13:02:43 +0200 (CEST)
Rainer Weikusat <rainer.weikusat at sncag.com> wrote:

> > Is then the limitation imposed by the driver sufficient? The device
> > itself can still be tuned.
> 
> You seem to be very fond of always trying to ask the wrong
> questions. See, I can (of course) take a conventional radio and modify
> the circuitry to overcome any artificial barrier that it tries to
> impose on me. But just because this is possible does not mean that
> the people who try to impose this would be very font of a switch at
> the frontside that everybody can easily use to overcome the
> limitation.

Thats not matter of making somebody fond, but a potential legal problem.
The circuitry on the card doesn't have to be modified, the only barier
is imposed by the driver. I hoped that when you state that the usage of
the device is forbiden, you can answer whether proper driver would make
it permitted again, but I'm becoming skeptical on that.

> > Not true. The verb doesn't specify particular "from" and "where".
> 
> Certainly true. For your "reasoning" to make any sense, you must first
> install the conception that hardware should do as little as possible
> on its own as 'natural order of things' in the minds of your readers,
> despite traditionally (thing of 'WinModems' versus 'real modems') it
> used to be the other way round. Therefore, you talk about 'the host
> CPU' 'offloading' certain tasks to devices, while I use the
> conventional meaning of 'the device' offloading functionality to the
> driver that used to be handled by the hardware itself.

Not true. Ever heard about TOE? You should install the conception that
any particular step of the processing belongs where it makes most sense,
without prejudice that it is the host or the device.

> > Again, not true. The meaningful information that you apparently missed
> > is that the overhead of maintaining the 802.11 stack is negligible,
> > tens of packets per second while data transfers generate thousands.
> 
> I don't care for two cents about what you consider something to be
> that you are not going to name itself. I have a multi-CPU system and
> want to use all CPUs in this multi-CPU system. If you don't want to
> use all of them, that's fine with me. Apart from that: What numbers
> are you talking about?

About the CPU cycles you worried about.

> 
> [BTW, please view this as a rethorical question. You are a BSD-bigot,
> therefore, you try to talk everybody into using BSD-code (generating a
> living for the people who have written those code as a side effect)].

I'm not, but open source firmware can be used by many operating systems
with various licenses, with BSD that would be seamles and no particular
way of the usage would be forced.

Feyd