This message is from the T13 list server.
Hmmm -- Andre sees Bob Doyle talking in third person, and Bob Doyle says Pat LaVarre is no Bob Doyle. Pat has left the building. Why is it to happen one way? ATAPI is bastardized SCSI, and SCSI is a bus-phase and not a state-machine. So lets do nothing and declare everyone is correct. Clearly there is an array of documents vendors use to make junk! Yes all hardware is junk, and hosts are ugly because ugly hosts are required to support junk hardware. Andre suggests there be a plugfest of junk, and everyone bring their bus-analyizer tools. Then we can shift the argument to who in the bus-analyizer arena is actual the correct decoder or are they all recorder/reporters. Bob Doyle tells Andre to stop doing third person. ----------------------- Pat, I am beginning to wonder if you just like to argue because you can. I used to have this problem and sometimes it returns now and again. Don't you find it a little odd to be quoting yourself to probe a point? Cheers, Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Pat LaVarre wrote: > This message is from the T13 list server. > > > > > In review, I think I dispute only the > > > point 6 of 8, the claim: "There can be only > > > 0 or 1 pad bytes in a command's data > > > transfer." > > ... > > Point 6 is one of the very basic rules > > of ATAPI PIO and DMA data transfers. > > There we have it folks. > > Hale believes Pat is disregarding one of the "most basic" de jure > t13.org rules, while Pat believes Hale is disregarding one of the most > glaringly obvious phenomena of de facto Ata/pi DMA bus traces. > > I see Hale neither quoted nor complied with my plea to defend the > significant minority of folk subscribed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] who lack any > reasonable way to register their disinterest in this debate. I believe > I remember I did just now make that plea explicit, though interestingly > enough here now I have no record of what last I said, neither the > portion Hale did quote, nor the rest. In any case, in accord with my > own plea, I have now blogged Hale's de jure reply to the > anonymously-world-writable: > > 6 of 8 > http://ide-byte-counting.blog-city.com/read/425998.htm > > And I have given my de facto answer there. > > Bye now, Pat LaVarre >
