Prev: Thomas F. Divine
Next: WinDDK is not building samples
From: Pavel A. on 3 May 2010 02:19
"anshul makkar" <anshul.makkar.maillist(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ae4dd38b-4ec2-413a-880f-a3396e5f39f3(a)g5g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> Hi Pavel,
>
> Thanks for the reply. Right now I am at design stage and my ultimate
> aim is to implement USB over IP.

Such products already exist.
http://www.usb-over-network.com/usb-over-network.html
Will yours be a bit late to market?
-- pa

> Its not necessary to implement virtual USB host controller driver,
> this is one of the deisgn approach to implement USBOIP.
> I am open to other approaches.
>
> I am not really sure about the Virtual USB host controller driver due
> to lack of support from MS. Thus looking for some other approaches.
>
> Thanks
> Anshul Makkar
> www.justkernel.com
> anshul_makkar(a)justkernel.com
>
> On May 1, 10:32 pm, "Pavel A." <pave...(a)12fastmail34.fm> wrote:
>> "anshul makkar" <anshul.makkar.maill...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:a9ae2b39-c5b8-4883-9aaf-6e0556c3c086(a)6g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>> .....
>>
>> > I may have to do lot of reverse enginnering to
>> > decipher the functionality of USB Host Controller driver.
>>
>> > So just wondering whethe the above design approach will be correct,
>> > considering lack of support/documentation from Microsoft.
>>
>> > Is there any other design approach that can be suitable ?
>>
>> > Please share your views and experiences.
>>
>> If we knew what is your Real Problem, we could suggest alternatives.
>> Of course, unless you are tasked exactly to create a virtual USB host
>> controller.
>>
>> Regards,
>> -- pa
>
From: Maxim S. Shatskih on 3 May 2010 06:05
>Thanks for the reply. Right now I am at design stage and my ultimate
>aim is to implement USB over IP.

1) Google a lot for whether there are network-side standards for it - like RFCs or such.

2) Write a virtual host controller driver. Not supported by MS. More so - even if you have a new hardware USB host, then the driver writing for it is not supported by MS either.

--
Maxim S. Shatskih
Windows DDK MVP
maxim(a)storagecraft.com
http://www.storagecraft.com

From: Maxim S. Shatskih on 3 May 2010 06:07
>What will be the end result , MS will again suffer when substandard
>drivers (built due to lack of support)

I also cannot understand why MS have not documented the USBPORT library.

--
Maxim S. Shatskih
Windows DDK MVP
maxim(a)storagecraft.com
http://www.storagecraft.com

From: Don Burn on 3 May 2010 08:19
If Microsoft say YES to giving you the documentation they face the
situation of locking down an interface. This is a challenge that most
OS vendors of the last 50 years or so have faced. Microsoft may feel
they do not have a stable interface for stack, remember right now this
is a contract between Microsoft drivers only.

Yes you can reverse engineer it, but do not blame Microsoft for the
problems of your trying to reproduce an undocumented interface that can
change out from under you at any bug fix or update. THE DECISION TO
MAKE A DRIVER THAT IS UNLIKELY TO EVER BE STABLE IS YOURS, AND A
PROFESSIONAL RECOGNIZES THEIR RESPONSIBILITES. So if you persist in
trying to blame Microsoft, I can only assume that you are someone whose
firm should be avoided at all costs.


Don Burn (MVP, Windows DKD)
Windows Filesystem and Driver Consulting
Website: http://www.windrvr.com
Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr




> -----Original Message-----
> From: anshul makkar [mailto:anshul.makkar.maillist(a)gmail.com]
>
> Don, If Microsoft says NO, that can't stop someone to do what one
wants to do.
>
> What will be the end result , MS will again suffer when substandard
drivers
> (built due to lack of support) will be running along with Windows
which may
> lead to problems/crashes in OS.
>
> Thanks
> Anshul Makkar
> www.justkernel.com
> anshul_makkar(a)justkernel.com
>


From: anshul makkar on 3 May 2010 09:19
Don, I will implement it and make it stable. And that's what my client
and people all over look at - new innovative solution and that's what
I will give them. (irrespective of all the problems that I may face.).

- I can only assume that you are someone whose firm should be avoided
at all costs.
Anshul: one can say whatever one wants to, but I have my growth and
my clients in mind and I know how to meet them. (And If I give them
what they desire , these kind of statements won't effect them).

Thanks for the suggestion.
Anshul Makkar
www.justkernel.com
anshul_makkar(a)justkernel.com

On May 3, 5:19 pm, "Don Burn" <b...(a)stopspam.windrvr.com> wrote:
> If Microsoft say YES to giving you the documentation they face the
> situation of locking down an interface.  This is a challenge that most
> OS vendors of the last 50 years or so have faced.  Microsoft may feel
> they do not have a stable interface for stack, remember right now this
> is a contract between Microsoft drivers only.
>
> Yes you can reverse engineer it, but do not blame Microsoft for the
> problems of your trying to reproduce an undocumented interface that can
> change out from under you at any bug fix or update.  THE DECISION TO
> MAKE A DRIVER THAT IS UNLIKELY TO EVER BE STABLE IS YOURS, AND A
> PROFESSIONAL RECOGNIZES THEIR RESPONSIBILITES.  So if you persist in
> trying to blame Microsoft, I can only assume that you are someone whose
> firm should be avoided at all costs.
>
> Don Burn (MVP, Windows DKD)
> Windows Filesystem and Driver Consulting
> Website:http://www.windrvr.com
> Blog:http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: anshul makkar [mailto:anshul.makkar.maill...(a)gmail.com]
>
> > Don, If Microsoft says NO, that can't stop someone to do what one
> wants to do.
>
> > What will be the end result , MS will again suffer when substandard
> drivers
> > (built due to lack of support) will be running along with Windows
> which may
> > lead to problems/crashes in OS.
>
> > Thanks
> > Anshul Makkar
> >www.justkernel.com
> > anshul_mak...(a)justkernel.com

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Thomas F. Divine
Next: WinDDK is not building samples