From mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Tue Jun 14 15:42:36 2005 X-Original-To: fnaumann@mail.boerde.de Delivered-To: fnaumann@mail.boerde.de Message-ID: <42AEDDC1.1050902@seznam.cz> Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 09:38:09 -0400 From: Standa Opichal User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mint@fishpool.com Subject: Re: [MiNT] Problem with mint 1.16 installation References: <42A85C4F.7050500@atari-hcm.de> <1118332250.6432.5.camel@linuxbox> <1118418583.7315.1.camel@joy.home> <20050610181058.16372.qmail@mailcz.in.systinet.com> <1118433097.6432.23.camel@linuxbox> <20050610213419.1280.qmail@mailcz.in.systinet.com In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Errors-To: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi X-original-sender: opichals@seznam.cz Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-Id: X-List-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at relay.boerde.de X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on relay.boerde.de X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.1 tagged_above=-50.5 required=7.0 tests=BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_SORBS X-Spam-Level: ** Hi! Frank Naumann wrote: >>> No, I would never even think about that. I just do not like hacks >>> in new apps because of some other SW imperfections. TSR seems to >>> be the right solution for me in this case. And so far I cannot >>> think of any better. > > As the XaAES is a kernel module and thus part of the kernel it's for > sure fully legal to manipulate caches. I aggree with Ozk that it's > much better and more user friendly if no TSR is needed, e.g. the TSR > is the bigger hack of the two alternatives (and will for sure lead to > much more confusion). There is a binary of the particular driver, right? I don't get why that one could not be patched to do what is required. Or you can even wrap one binary into another and build one single TSR for the VDI you need when you speak about user friendliness. All right guys we seem really to disagree from time to time. Yet again my point of view: The particular VDI driver is clearly a AUTO VDI (therefore TOS) problem (not MiNT nor AES'). Yes any TSR is a hack of course but until you have the VDI cleanly integrated in the OS - FreeMiNT (which you never would because you would never quite supporting the old dead cards - understandably) - then the VDI all is a hack to the OS (sitting on a trap somewhere in the system which doesn't even know about it strictly spoken). And therefore a TSR would be more appropriate hack as opposed to tweak AES to support every stupid VDI implementation that doesn't do what it should (and it is VDI no matter which particular part of it). Perhaps someone will someday convince me on te opposite but that doesn't really matter... STanda