Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 22:10:52 +0100 From: Gary Jennejohn <garyj@peedub.muc.de> To: freebsd-isdn@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ITK Support Message-ID: <199812152110.WAA08885@peedub.muc.de> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 15 Dec 1998 07:27:22 %2B0100." <000601be27f3$f943d120$53cb08d4@hwart.teuto.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Martin Husemann" writes: >I wrote: >> >No, no real problems if (a) the interface to the card is >> documented, (b) the >> >interface is reasonable and (c) the card behaves like the docs promise. > >Gary answered: >> the real problem is that a lot of active cards require a CAPI interface, >> which we do not have (yet). > >This is an example of violating (b) above - IMHO. > you have a valid point there... >The idea goes back to the DOS days: a CAPI was required as user-land >interface, and implementing it in a TSR costed precious memory. So they've >put all of the CAPI stuff onto the card (where memory could be added as >needed). > I thought the idea behind CAPI was to avoid having to write a special interface for each card. If the card talks CAPI and the user's application too, then everything's jake. The user can theoretically plug in any (CAPI talking) card and his application will still work. Don't forget, the big market is still M$ based machines, so the manufacturers naturally target it. Every WinDoze user has a CAPI installed, doesn't he ? ;-) It would make my life a lot easier if the vermaledeite AVM B1 did not require a CAPI interface, though ! --- Gary Jennejohn Home - garyj@muc.de Work - garyj@fkr.dec.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isdn" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199812152110.WAA08885>