Linux Developers, Start Your Copiers! 16723

So, yeah, that *is* what you were saying. Note that I didn't say you were lying about that. I just asked for substantiation, and I'll note I did it politely. My response was aimed at your apparent buttertion that Microsoft-written drivers were necessary to use it.

Interestingly, *none* of them are for NICs that one would use Ndiswrappers for. The only two NICs in that list, NE-2000 and the 1394-ndis, both have perfectly good native Linux drivers.

Hell, Linux has better legacy support than Windows by a long shot; I don't know of any 'legacy' hardware modern Windows supports that modern Linux doesn't.

In any case, I don't see how this supports your buttertion:

I suppose, somewhere, somehow, some fool might use the Microsoft NE-2000 driver under ndiswrappers instead of the perfectly good Linux one, but do you really think this is somehow significant or widespread?

Where did you get the list? I can understand that Microsoft supplies these drivers, but where does it state that they wrote them? (Note, I'm not at all saying that they didn't necessarily. What I'm asking is, of the drivers provided with Windows, how do I tell the difference between ones written by Microsoft and ones supplied by the vendor and repackaged by Microsoft?)

I *didn't* argue that. I asked *you* to support *your* argument that they do.

-- Sincerely,

Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317

"Our earth is degenerate in these latter days. There are signs that the world is speedily coming to an end. Bribery and corruption are common." - an buttyrian clay tablet from ~2800BC