> [meta-devices]
>
> > NO! Channels are meant to exchange DATA, NOT to send COMMANDS or
> > PARAMETERS to a piece of hardware ! (of course, you could argue
> > that "commands" and "parameters" are just some form of "data",
> > but you won't, will you ? ;-)
This reminds me of how the Apple ][ disk drives were accessed from
within a program - via PRINT! The device driver scanned all output
looking for a lead-in escape sequence and then used the rest of the
output line as the command and its parameters to execute.
> > Don't invoke LOGIC here, as I see no logic in your proposal: they are
> > DIFFERENT devices (one SCSI and one IDE) on DIFFERENT hardware... Even
> > UNIX uses DIFFERENT device names for SCSI and IDE !
But Unix DOESN'T have to! It only does so to assist the user; [roughly
speaking] Unix uses "special files" which are actually pointers to
device drivers (as defined by the major number of the file) which can
obviously be named anything you [as root] like.
> Things were easy when the only thing you could connect to a floppy
> interface was a floppy. Trouble started when they inroduced tape drives.
> With IDE things got complex faster - it started off as hard drive only, now
> you can put almost any storage device (including floppy) onto it, using two
> distinct protocols. With SCSI, things are even worse, cause there you can
> use non-storage devices.
Funny you should mention SCSI, I've just got a copy of next-next month's
(August) Computer Shopper (it's still June and I can no longer buy a
June NOR July issue!) and therein I came across an artice about it.
Although SCSI was originally devised by a hard disk manufacturer
(Shugart), it is actually more of a "peripheral bus" (hence its ability
to have longer cables than IDE). What's actually worse about it is that
SCSI normally refers to SCSI-3 which isn't very standard (from what I
could gather from the article - sorry, left the mag at work, otherwise
I'd give quote(s))
> Then, we have non-storage oriented interfaces that
> got storage devices grafted to them,
I suppose SCSI could be defined as the opposite: a storage interface
that [early on, in acceptance stage by standards people,] had
non-storage devices grafted on.
> such as parallel ports.
What's wrong with using a parallel port to access a storage device? Or
is this based on the misconception that parallel port = printer [output]
port (as that's for which they're generally used [by most PC users] and
only that "driver" is installed)?
My first meeting with a parallel port was on the Commodore Pet (3032) -
an IEEE 488 interface (aka HP-IB; a parallel port) by which its floppy
disks (along with a printer and any other devices) were attached.
Then, if you go to the Commodore VIC-20, that (if I've got the right
machine) had a floppy disk drive that was attached via a SERIAL port!
Food for thought?
Keep up the good work
Robert
