At 2005-01-16T22:23:36+1300, Wesley Parish wrote:
> I concluded during the nineties that the general purpose computer was
> somewhat clumsily designed, and should instead be split up into
> function domains, with each function domain being assigned one primary
> function and being made to do it well;
During the nineties, when lots of now-defunct companies were hyping the
earl{y,ier} attempts at set-top boxes for the "average user"?
Insightful.
> with the bus being replaced by a network. Preferably something like
> as the Fibre Channel, with its several supported protocols - HIPPI,
> SCSI, TCP/IP, etc.
HIPPI? Over Fibre Channel? Seems like an unusual and unrealistic
choice, particularly for a product aimed at the home market. In fact,
even the suggestion of Fibre Channel seems unusual and unrealistic.
Which variant, copper or optical? It seems like expecting a home user
to carefully handle delicate optical cable for their "simple to use"
computer/applicance is a bit much to ask, not to go into the cost of
using FC as a solution for this problem domain.
> That way, much of the configuration kaffuffle would cease to exist, since
> nodes on a network don't need to configure other nodes in order to
> communicate with them.
Hand waving doesn't make any of the hard problems go away.
Cheers,
-mjg
--
Matthew Gregan |/
/| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
