🚀 go-pugleaf

In <52508.656318355@atronx.UUCP> rwm@atronx.UUCP (Russell McOrmond) writes:
>In a message posted on 18 Oct 90 15:17:54 GMT,
>blubaugh@ucqais.uc.edu (pri=2 Dwight Blubaugh) wrote:
>pDB>    But Everything that Commodore has said is that 2.0 will solve the
>pDB>multiple-port problem.  Every reply so far leads me to believe that we

Russel responds with...
>In order for it to solve it, it would have to have a device that called
>another device, or would need to understand the hardware involved with each
>serial device - There is no 'best' way to implement a serial device in hardware
>- It really depends on what you want/need.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^    since you asked....
    I'd like the ability to drop in a serial card and have the system
automagically know what it is and how to talk to it.  This means that
the card should really have all of its own code on board or
sufficiently identify itself to the system that binddrivers can finish
getting the resident portion of the code going.  I then want DOS to
know that additional serial/parallel devices are out there and have a
sensible naming sequence imposed.  I'd rather not have to build a
mountlist or worry about the slot that a card exists in.  When I access
the serial.device asking for a particular unit, I want EXEC or a
serial.device shell to figure out and direct all subsequent device/unit
IO to the relevent resident code.
    We will always have the direct hardware people ( i.e. populous ) and
that is their and our loss.  I just think its ridiculous that IBM people
can add multi-port cards and most all of their software can find the
ports.  With AutoConfig(TM), Amiga solved a major IO address problem and put
us onto the road to easy to add hardware.  I just wish I had more serial
and parallel ports that are software accessable thru similar mechanisms
that exist now ( e.g. SER2: , serial.device unit 2 )

>I don't know if I'd WANT to have to rely on the Commodore Serial software -
>There are a few functions missing that are required (IE: DTR control under
>a shared Serial port situation (VERY common)).
    I've heard about that one.
>  So far I've found the ASDG serial device to be the best implementation,
>which is why I bought their Duel-Serial board (IE: I don't use the internal
                             ^^^^ dual, although dueling ports might be funny.
>  I still, for the life of me, can't undestand any reason for Commodore,
>Supra, and so many other companies to not support a simple thing like DTR
>control.  They end up forcing us to always go to the hardware directly which
>is always a Bad idea - The FACT is that 'closing and re-opening' DOES NOT WORK!

    Is this something that is bigger than Commodore?  Should the Amiga
Software Developers be addressing this instead??  If third parties could
agree upon a mechanism can we be sure that Commodore won't take a NIH
(not invented here) approach much as they did with ARP??
>  Russell McOrmond   rwm@atronx.UUCP   {fts1,alzabo}!atronx!rwm 
>  FidoNet 1:163/109  Net Support: (613) 230-2282
>  Amiga-Fidonet Support  1:1/109
-- 
Dwight Blubaugh Ph.D.
UUCP: {decuac,mit-eddie,phri,pyramid}!uccba!ucqais!blubaugh.UUCP
INTERNET: blubaugh@ucqais.uc.edu
Anybody want to hire a Ph.D. chemist with a computer background?????