On Thursday 03 May 2012 19:02:35 Tim Roberts wrote:
> Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> > In the answers from the Microsoft guy, there were some arguments about
> > security. Many kind of device drivers could have been made more secure by
> > moving out of the kernel, for example
On Wednesday 02 May 2012 21:15:27 Tim Roberts wrote:
> Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> > Why Microsoft can't use the BSD or Linux USB stack then, which supports
> > all of this. Sounds like very bad internal USB design to me!
>
> Oh, please. The Microsoft internal USB
On Wednesday 02 May 2012 07:03:59 Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> Reference: http://www.osronline.com/showthread.cfm?link=223812
>
> In the above thread, Microsoft's Doron Holan (Windows driver
> expert) answered Microsoft's view on the perceived WinUSB
> limitations.
>
> I think this is of good reference
Hi,
I think it is important for the future of libusb that we are able to agree on
a common API among the various implementations of libusb and are able to
separate that from code development, and not diverge into various non-
compatible libraries.
--HPS
On Friday 20 April 2012 01:26:37 Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 3:21 AM, Hans Petter Selasky
wrote:
> > Hi Pete,
> >
> > I haven't followed the discussions on this list for a while. What's new
> > with libusbx?
> >
> > What AP
Hi Pete,
I haven't followed the discussions on this list for a while. What's new with
libusbx?
What API's are you changing?
How do you plan to add support for FreeBSD 8 and later, which has its own
implementation of the official libusb 1.0 and 0.1.
--HPS
-
