41–50 of 51 posts
USB had a quite successful precursor: RS-232. The serial standard is now 60 years old (!) and still much more widespread then USB in many industry machines.
Actually the more appropriate predecessor of USB is 8-bit Atari SIO: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_SIO
Earlier quoted context omitted.
RS232 is the electrical signal standard; the chunky connector usually used is a DB25 but basic RS232 can fit in DB9 RJ11 (eg landline) and RJ45 (eg ethernet) were also connectors that achieved very widespread use, as did RG6 (eg cable tv) (I'm not going to say they changed the world and I'm also not so sure I like the grab-bag nature of the various things the article lists either for example, 8, 14 and 16 (and more)…
If you are interested in being a pedant, which you may or may not be: What you call DB-9 is actually D E -9. (A DB-9 would be the size of a DB-25 but with only 9 pins, which would be weird.) What you call RJ11 is a 6p2c. (Six position, two connectors.) What you call an RJ45 is an 8p8c. (You can guess this one.)
I went to the trouble to point out truly salient distinctions between physical/hardware layers, signal/electrical layers, and virtual/logic layers that were being ignored, and thoroughly pointing out technologies that were extremely important to changing the world thoroughly in the ways in which the article was discussing
And, here, you can buy yourself a DB9 https://www.l-com.com/frequently-asked-questions/what-is-a-d...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you are interested in being a pedant, which you may or may not be: What you call DB-9 is actually D E -9. (A DB-9 would be the size of a DB-25 but with only 9 pins, which would be weird.) What you call RJ11 is a 6p2c. (Six position, two connectors.) What you call an RJ45 is an 8p8c. (You can guess this one.)
I was absolutely not being a pedant, because even though I was replying to a comment, everything I pointed out would have fit into the original article; whereas what you wrote fits only into my comment. I went to the trouble to point out truly salient distinctions between physical/hardware layers, signal/electrical layers, and virtual/logic layers that were being ignored, and thoroughly pointing out technologies that…
Secondly: a common mistake is still a mistake. That shop is selling things with DE-9 connectors, all of which they have mislabeled.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was absolutely not being a pedant, because even though I was replying to a comment, everything I pointed out would have fit into the original article; whereas what you wrote fits only into my comment. I went to the trouble to point out truly salient distinctions between physical/hardware layers, signal/electrical layers, and virtual/logic layers that were being ignored, and thoroughly pointing out technologies that…
Firstly, I think you’ve misread: I didn’t accuse you of being a pedant, I suggested you might like to be. Behind a pedant on the internet is sometimes quite fun, but if you don’t want to, then don’t. Secondly: a common mistake is still a mistake. That shop is selling things with DE-9 connectors, all of which they have mislabeled.
and nor did I say you did, who now is misreading?
why do you avoid replying to the the main thrust of my rebuttal?
again, I made a cogent argument about the main topic, and whether I labelled a old connector the way many others did is irrelevant to the topic at hand, and if anything hobbles your pedantry hobby horse. Where are your critiques of the more egregious errors in TFA?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Firstly, I think you’ve misread: I didn’t accuse you of being a pedant, I suggested you might like to be. Behind a pedant on the internet is sometimes quite fun, but if you don’t want to, then don’t. Secondly: a common mistake is still a mistake. That shop is selling things with DE-9 connectors, all of which they have mislabeled.
> misread: I didn’t accuse you of being a pedant and nor did I say you did, who now is misreading? why do you avoid replying to the the main thrust of my rebuttal? again, I made a cogent argument about the main topic, and whether I labelled a old connector the way many others did is irrelevant to the topic at hand, and if anything hobbles your pedantry hobby horse. Where are your critiques of the more egregious error…
> Because personal computers first used DB-25 connectors for their serial and parallel ports, when the PC serial port began to use 9-pin connectors, they were often labeled as DB-9 instead of DE-9 connectors, due to an ignorance of the fact that B represented a shell size. It is now common to see DE-9 connectors sold as DB-9 connectors
from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-subminiature
There are plenty of other sources available, which I’m not going to bother looking up.
As for the rest of your initial comment, I don’t disagree: you made a pretty substantive contribution to the thread, but again I never said you didn’t.
The main thrust of your “rebuttal” is trying to fight an argument I’m not making.
I really wish that regular trailers would develop some sort of standard linkage system rather than the SAE ball. I want to back up to my trailer and have it hitch a load equalizing connection without having raise/lower and get grease all over my hands and pants.
There is. Tractors for semitrailers have a fifth wheel, of course. That's the 90mm size. There's a smaller 50mm size used for RV trailers. The hitch for that bolts into the truck bed.
So something more in line with the rail car system is in order.
In February 2000, Salesforce released the world’s first API into the wild API's existed long before this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> misread: I didn’t accuse you of being a pedant and nor did I say you did, who now is misreading? why do you avoid replying to the the main thrust of my rebuttal? again, I made a cogent argument about the main topic, and whether I labelled a old connector the way many others did is irrelevant to the topic at hand, and if anything hobbles your pedantry hobby horse. Where are your critiques of the more egregious error…
You didn’t rebut a thing I said: the only substance of my initial comment was that you had mis-named some connectors... which you did. Your reply contained no proof otherwise, except the shop link which I explicitly addressed. If you’re really asserting that I’m wrong about connector names, here you go: > Because personal computers first used DB-25 connectors for their serial and parallel ports, when the PC serial po…
I mistakenly took your phrase "if you want to be pedantic" to mean that I was being pedantic, but inadequately so, a common just desserts.
now, if you want to be pedantic, which you seem to, you might wish to say that I did not mistake your phrase but in fact I chose the most common usage of that phrase as its clear meaning, and you could have been more clear simply by saying "not to be pedantic, but...", as my comment was clearly not focused on model numbers but on real issues of substance, and your comment was focused on pedantry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've recently started working with firewire, and man what an interesting bus. You've got isochronous and asynchronous support simultaneously, awesome! But then you get this: "Voltage is specified as unregulated and should nominally be about 25 volts (range 24 to 30)" Looking at the nearest firewire device on my table, it will certainly blow up if I get near it with 25 volts. It's like USB-C without any negotiation!
I worked on the FireWire driver stack for OS X... and we encountered many incidents of managing to plug in the 6-pin connector upside down. Devices will actually catch fire. (FireWire carries up to 45W (!) at 30v) Also, isochronous mode is great in theory, but in practice, at least in a desktop computer, the rest of the machine internals are not isochronous so you can still run into real-time delivery failures.