🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5194@convex.convex.com> swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) writes:
>of the other cludges that people are using that CBM doesn't support.  Are
>they dumb too?  How about Matt Dillon's parallel-port DNET implementation?

>Does that filesystem ever drop characters under intense multitasking?
>(I'm asking - I don't know).  I know it's a lot slower than the local
>file system, and a lot slower than the "legitimate" solution (ethernet).
>But it works and people apparently get good use out of it.
>
What is kludgey about the parallel-port stuff?  It's under interrupt control,
so it doesn't hog the CPU;  the parallel.device is DESIGNED and SPEC'ED for
handling both input and output;  NET: is an honest-to-god file system,
installed with the Commodore-supplied MOUNT command and following all the
rules.  No, it doesn't drop characters.  (It does occasionally hang, but
I'm working on it :-).  Ethernet is absolutely no more 'legitimate' than
parnet.

What makes the joystick-serial device illegitimate is that it would kill
multitasking.  If the user wants to put up with this, fine, let him.  But
it'll never be supported by C=.

>Cheers,
>--
>--Steve
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>	  {uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; swarren@convex.COM


  *****
=*|_o_o|\\=====Doug Walker, Software Distiller================================
 *|. o.| ||
  | o  |//     "Yes, it's time to change it, but I don't have anything to say"
  ======  
usenet: ...mcnc!rti!sas!walker   plink: dwalker  bix: djwalker