From: Wilson G. Hein (hyu.zdhmjcx@hypovereinsbank.de)
Date: Fri Mar 15 2002 - 18:43:38 EET
Why not a port number? I believe bpq and msys both used that sceme. Maybe
xnos too!
Wilson, WJ3G
-----Original Message-----
From: bpswbb.jktlz@mesh.net
[mailto:terhi.victor@logonet.com]On Behalf Of Terry Dawson
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 4:55 AM
To: fqmwztyp@loveteam.net
Subject: Re: tokens ?: name .vs. value
Chuck nc8q Gelm wrote:
> To make it easier for newbies, wouldn't it be great if all
> applications, documentation, and configuration files all
> used the same token name for the same thing?
Chuck,
Yep, we agree completely, your point is entirely a valid one.
We've picked up your point and taken it one step further. We've asked the
question as to why we need seperate device and portnames, let alone having a
standard for portname.
We're proposing getting rid of portname completely and just having device
name.
regards
Terry
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-hams" in
the body of a message to wdefmxg@mail.dy.fi
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-hams" in
the body of a message to ahczr@amerion.net
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Mar 15 2002 - 19:12:10 EET