🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <52902.656747372@atronx.UUCP> rwm@atronx.UUCP (Russell McOrmond) writes:
>In a message posted on 22 Oct 90 18:24:49 GMT,
>blubaugh@ucqais.uc.edu (Dr. Blubaugh) wrote:
>DB>    I'd like the ability to drop in a serial card and have the system
...
>DB>automagically know what it is and how to talk to it.  This means that
>DB>getting the resident portion of the code going.  I then want DOS to
>DB>know that additional serial/parallel devices are out there and have a

>Here's the problem, though.  It's not DOS that needs to know about these
>things, but the application.  Right now a lot of software just has 
>'serial.device', unit 0 hardwired into the Binary.  IF it allows you to change
>units (Which is what you need to do in the BEST case), the program usually also
>allowes you to change the device. So, no matter what the specific authors do,
>this has to be standardized.

This HAS been standardized.  Commodore recommended application writers one
of three methods (which are not mutually exclusive):

1. give a switch from the CLI, as in:

run atalk3 SERIAL siosbx.device UNIT 1

2. select the device from the ToolType, as in:

SERIAL=siosbx.device
UNIT=1

3. Allow "dynamic" selection from a menu item

A-Talk III implemented 1. and 2. since Jan. 1989.  Even pd programs now
support at least one of the above.  It's been almost two years simce
the recommendations were published, so if a comm program, commercial or
not, doesn't support them, claiming it's Commodore fault, he's telling
you a lie. 

-- Marco
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Xerox sues somebody for copying?" -- David Letterman
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=