Why do I need isdn4k-utils

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Fri, 2005-01-14 at 12:49 -0600, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-01-14 at 17:55 +0000, James Wilkinson wrote:
> > This isn't the right trade-off for everyone. But it will make Free
> > Software more accessible to a large proportion of people, and make it a
> > more financially attractive proposition for the corporate desktop.
> > 
> 
> On a percentage basis, the number of people using ISDN lines is very
> small.
I don't know where you live, but ... do you know about the importance of
ISDN in Europe, esp. in Germany? It's importance is decreasing, as most
Fedora users will have DSL, nevertheless it is still very important.

>  Your argument is quite sound and well-reasoned, and I find a lot
> of value in it. However, note that it is far more applicable to the
> kernel modules than for isdn4k-utils, which is the subject directly at
> hand here.
Right.

> There's also the issue of which package group holds isdn4k-utils (again,
> in this specific example). If it's in the desktop set of packages, then
> your argument holds more water (although I still don't buy it... see my
> response to Matt just a minute or two ago). But in the minimal package
> set, I believe that isdn4k-utils is *definitely* not needed.
Correct. It isn't needed unless you actually have an ISDN card and want
to use it. (Therefore kudzu also is not an alternative - kudzu doen't
know if a user is really wanting to use a card).

Ralf