Re: Damm Small Linux
From: Rich Grise (rich_at_example.net)
Date: 11/27/04
- Next message: keith: "Re: Microcontroller ... which one ??"
- Previous message: S. hashem Aref: "delay for microwave signal!?"
- In reply to: Joel Kolstad: "Re: Damm Small Linux"
- Next in thread: Joerg: "Re: Damm Small Linux"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 18:58:37 GMT
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 09:38:24 -0800, Joel Kolstad wrote:
> Joerg,
>
> "Joerg" <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:9oRpd.27531$6q2.9653@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>> That is true. But with a (manually) switched parallel port I did pretty
>> much the same stuff as with USB.
>
> Fair enough, and I suppose I did too, but IMO USB is a _much_ better
> interface than the parallel port ever was. People were constantly having
> problems with, e.g., scanners connected to dongles, multiple dongles
> stacked, printers piggybacked on scanners... ugggh!
This isn't fair to the parallel port. The problem with this was dongles!
And the fact that there was usually only the one, and in very rare cases,
two parallel ports. So everybody had just the one, and nobody had even
thought of multitasking so everybody had to step on everybody elses
interrupt vectors, and every piece of software that used a TSR or
interrupt said in the instructions, "Install Me Last."
> A USB stack -- while far from trivial -- is also not _too_ huge; I expect it
> could be readily achieved in <100k with some effort.
Sure, now! :-)
Cheers!
Rich
- Next message: keith: "Re: Microcontroller ... which one ??"
- Previous message: S. hashem Aref: "delay for microwave signal!?"
- In reply to: Joel Kolstad: "Re: Damm Small Linux"
- Next in thread: Joerg: "Re: Damm Small Linux"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|