>At 14:24 14/07/02, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>>[...] In addition, if the drive would support DAE via some non-standard
>>interface [...]. The DAE quality would be lousy [...].
>This is a very presumptuous statement! You cannot assume that an
>alternative interface would be of lousy quality. Maybe it is a million
>times better? The current one (at least as some drives implement it on the
>drive side) can be of very, very poor quality indeed.
Name a single drive that is DAE capable, does not support ATAPI and
doesn't do DAE in lousy quality.
>Note: I am not saying that there is an alternative interface or anything
>like that... just that your statement is fallacious.
Your statements just proove that you didn't try to get the background information
that is needed to find a useful and seminal future development.
Jörg
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1
schilling@fokus.gmd.de (work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL: http://www.fokus.gmd.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/