[Coco] Coco to PC cable

[Gene Heskett]

On Tuesday 10 March 2009, Frank Pittel wrote:
>On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 02:31:10PM -0500, Boisy Pitre wrote:
>>> No flames here.  I'm always open for a peaceful group talk.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure I understand how any kind of "integration" of DriveWire
>>> and CoCoNet (or their underlying protocols) could yield two systems
>>> that don't eventually become identical.  Right now, they're not the
>>> same by any means.  It seems that eventually the now-open DriveWire
>>> would become CoCoNet, and CoCoNet would become DriveWire.  If this
>>> happens, any competition at all would be in the EPROMs and/or the paks
>>> they ride in, and software that uses the internet abilities of either
>>> progressing network system.  I don't think the name DriveWire will
>>> always describe what it does.  I think the name CoCoNet fully
>>> describes where I'm taking the system.  These are some of the key
>>> points that come to mind when I compare the two systems and where they
>>> would otherwise be going.
>>>
>>> Here's a summary of what CoCoNet currently does:  As well as the
>>> server, the *CoCo* can mount virtual disks from the web or remote PC.
>>> CoCoNet can request web pages and files and have them returned on a
>>> mounted virtual disk.  These requests can append URL parameters, making
>>> some serious things possible from the CoCo, like live chat,
>>> multi-player games, etc. without adding any additional protocol
>>> support.  Oh, and mounting virtual ROM Paks,... done in the bitbanger
>>> version, not added to the 6551 version yet.
>>
>> I don't have the benefit of seeing your CoCoNet protocol since you have
>> not published it, so I cannot fully compare products here, but from your
>> description, it is fair to assume that your product is a superset of
>> DriveWire.
>>
>> Even so, you could still adopt the DriveWire 3 protocol for disk storage
>> and printing to remain compatible with the existing user base, and have
>> your advanced features (web page saving, etc) outside of the DriveWire
>> protocol altogether.
>>
>> Adopting the protocol in CoCoNet would be a win-win for you and for the
>> CoCo community.
>>
>> For you, it would expand the use of your product immediately to Linux
>> and Mac OS X for the disk functionality.   Do you plan on having
>> NitrOS-9 support for CoCoNet?  Instead of writing your own drivers, you
>> could adopt the DriveWire 3 protocol and not have to spend any time
>> writing drivers.  It would just "work" under NitrOS-9.  And if you chose
>> to publish your protocol, then NitrOS-9 could be made to adapt to any
>> extra features that you would bring in your protocol.
>>
>> For the CoCo community it would provide the following benefits:
>>
>> 1. HDB-DOS for DriveWire 3 users could talk to a CoCoNet server (you
>> didn't indicate if the server software would be free or not, so this may
>> not be an issue)
>> 2. CoCoNet ROM users could talk to any DriveWire 3 server under Linux,
>> Windows or Mac OS X for disk image support (DriveWire 3 servers are
>> freely available for download)
>> 3. NitrOS-9 users could boot from a NitrOS-9 disk mounted on your
>> CoCoNet server
>>
>> To enumerate the downsides of having two separate systems and protocols
>> for disk storage:
>>
>> 1. CoCoNet customers could not use DriveWire 3 WinServer, MacServer or
>> LinServer servers.
>> 2. HDB-DOS for DriveWire customers could not use the CoCoNet server
>> 3. Customers would be forced to choose between two products that have
>> similar functionality; those who don't require web pages to be loaded
>> onto their CoCo, or need NitrOS-9 support, would use HDB-DOS for
>> DriveWire.  Those who would desire the web page and ROM pak features you
>> offer would have to choose you product.
>> 4. You would have to write NitrOS-9 drivers (assuming you wanted to
>> support NitrOS-9, that is)
>>
>> This is all, of course, your decision.  For me, there is no benefit or
>> detriment to you choosing to adopt the DriveWire 3 protocol. Besides the
>> benefits that I laid out above (additional server platform support,
>> instant NitrOS-9 compatibility), the CoCo community would be the real
>> winner here, and that's really what it's all about, right?
>>
>> Is there anyone else here who would see the benefit of Roger adopting
>> the DriveWire 3 protocol for disk storage in his CoCoNet product if it
>> meant greater interoperability, greater choice and greater flexibility?
>
>In the interest of full disclosure I should point out that I am happily
> using drivewire and have little interest in switching to something else.
> I'm hoping that Roger sees the wisdom having his product and drivewire use
> the same protocol or at least he sees the wisdom in opening his protocol.
> The current coco community is to small to have a "war" between the two
> protocols. While I believe in competition I'm afraid that in this case it
> will divide the community and in the long run this will be a bad thing.
>
>Frank
>
+2 at least, Frank.  However, that could work both ways.  If Rogers code is 
clean and stable, how much work would it be to just merge them, keeping the 
best features of each?

I'm not truly interested in DriveWire, having lost some usb gear on the coco 
end of the cables I run here from Mother Nature hearing somebody call that 
stuff butter.  So I feel as if I'll have a plus, and the coco will just be 
that much better isolated from lightning damages if I replace the cable with 
bluetooth stuff.  That means I'll only have one path, where ATM, thanks to USB 
hubs, I have 2, over one cable.  That sends /p1 to here, massages it to drive 
a Brother Laser printer, and sends it back to the printer which is also 
plugged into the same usb hub on the coco's desk.  That is 2 paths via usb, 
and then I have a serial cable from the rs-232 pack to the usb adaptor, and 
that comes up here on /dev/ttyUSB2 when its powered up.  I run minicom here, 
to a shell -i /t2& on the coco3.

The only other choice I might have is to power the coco from the downstream 
side of the 1500WA UPS that runs everything else here.  That might help.

-- 
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Those who have some means think that the most important thing in the
world is love.  The poor know that it is money.
		-- Gerald Brenan