On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 09:32:13PM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
>
> Joerg Sonnenberger said:
> | You don't need "just" a cable, but one with quite a bit logic in between.
> | USB is not designed for host-to-host communication,
>
> Thanks - that's the kind of info I was lacking, given I know nothi
On 12 October 2015 at 10:32, Robert Elz wrote:
> Long long ago I did an implementation of config code (more or less a console)
> for a device that had nothing but ethernet. For that (and to avoid the
> issue that would arise here, of needing specialised client code) I used telnet
> over TCP. S
First, I know I was a little overboard on the "RS232 is dead" theme, there
are still uses for it, and it remains useful for its purpose.
However, the time when *everything* had rs232 available has passed now,
and it was that which made it attractive as an alternative console
(boosted by many older
2015-10-12 7:50 GMT+02:00 Robert Elz :
> No, that makes no sense. The whole point is that no-one has RS232
> on anything modern - forcing it to exist, just because it is what used
> to be used helps nothing.
This generalising statement is at least wrong in an industrial
environment for example.
Date:Mon, 12 Oct 2015 07:15:43 +0200
From:Felix Deichmann
Message-ID:
| Sounds complicated. Why not just use a ucom(4) device as console then?
| Gives RS232 again with the right adapter. :)
No, that makes no sense. The whole point is that no-one has RS232
on
Date:Mon, 12 Oct 2015 10:31:32 +0530
From:Mayuresh
Message-ID: <20151012050132.GA11271@odin>
| Even nicer if such device could be a smartphone, which can make it
| convenient to collect data, just from ease point of view.
Yes, that would work also, but would need
2015-10-12 7:01 GMT+02:00 Mayuresh :
>> ps: it would be interesting to know if there was any rational way to
>> develop a NetBSD to NetBSD USB protocol that could maybe be used to
>> replace serial consoles ... requiring just a cable to link 2 NetBSD
>> systems to each other - I know nothing about
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:21:41AM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> Without that, all that you can get is what you can see on the screen.
I think this topic is worth discussing. I have seen several mail threads
where people paste threads, obviously gathered systematically. But I do
not know how they do
