Once upon a time, I loved SCSI. (Was: Help! Is this kernel or hardwareproblem?)

[Ben Scott]

On 11/28/05, Rob Lembree <rob at lembree.com> wrote:
>>   Apple always did (and continues to) have such nice designs.  It's a
>> pity they're so darn proprietary.
>
> You mean like by using BSD and making the sources available?  ;-)

  I mean like needing a special screw driver and a special case
cracking tool to open the original compact Macs.

  I mean like requiring "APPLE" to be preset in the hard drive identification.

  I mean like suing others for coping "their" "look-and-feel".

  I mean like wanting everyone who implemented Firewire to pay a
license fee for the connector.

  I mean like using their own odd ball connectors for serial ports,
Ethernet ports, etc., ignoring established standards, for no apparent
reason.

  I mean like not even being compatible with their own expansion slot
designs from model to model.

  I mean like suing anyone who even comes close to touching their
precious iTunes and it's Digital Restrictions Management.

  I mean like refusing to document the interfaces to the iPod.

  Shall I continue?  ;-)

  Oh, and really: The BSD sources were *already* available.  By
publishing their changes and getting things pushed back into upstream
sources, they only make their lives easier.  Sure, it benefits
everybody, and that's great, but it isn't like Apple was motivated by
some overwhelming spirit of altruism.  AFAIK, Apple didn't publish
source to any of the tons of code they put on top of BSD to make Mac
OS X what it is.

> ...compare the openness of Apple to ANY other Unix vendor, and the closest might
> be, and only recently, Sun...

  Ah, the ever popular "other companies suck too" defense.  ;-)

> Ask me sometime how sad Windows' USB driver is compared
> to Mac or Linux...

  How sad is Windows's USB driver compared to Mac or Linux?  ;-)

  From what I've seen of various comments on the web, I already had a
suspicion that Microsoft's USB subsystem implemented only parts of the
standard, and got very confused if something didn't conform to
Microsoft's ideas as to what the "important" parts of the standard
were.  That, in turn, of course, leads to other products designed
around Microsoft's brain damaged USB stack, rather then the proper USB
spec.  That, in turn, of course, leads to those products pukeing all
over themselves when they encounter a more complete USB
implementation.

  Microsoft considered harmful.  Film at 11.

  I'm curious: How does Firewire on Windows stack up to Firewire on
Mac?  Is Microsoft Firewire as broken as Microsoft USB?

>  ... a mobile handset (we don't call them phones ...

  "At my house, we call [fires] 'Uh-oh's'."  -- Ralph Wiggum, The Simpsons

> Now about networking.  Yes, you can run ethernet protocols over
> USB, we do it all the time to boot prototype handsets using TFTP
> from mac and linux boxes.

  Yah, but that's a lot easier, because the phone is already a USB
slave device.  All you need is a simple cable.

  To go master-to-master (i.e., for PC-to-PC), you need special
devices.  Most of them consist of a gadget that functions as a bridge,
with two USB "slave" ports.  So both PCs see it as a slave, and
special drivers turn it into something that smells like Ethernet.  But
you're still stuck with just two PCs, and not all these gadets work if
you try using USB hubs.  It's a mess.

  With Firewire, you just use regular cables and regular hubs
everywhere, because it's always peer-to-peer.  So much nicer.  And I
say this as a guy who has never owned any Firewire hardware other then
an iPod.  :)

>>   Again, Apple was their own worst enemy.  If they hadn't been so
>> proprietary about Firewire, there's a good chance USB would never have
>> gained traction, and we wouldn't have to worry about fixing all the
>> brain damage in USB.
>
> Ehh, USB becomes a whole lot less interesting when ...

  The *point* was that if Apple hasn't been so proprietary about
Firewire, there's a good chance the question of how interesting USB is
would be solely academic.  USB was simply Intel's NIH reaction to
Firewire.  Firewire was clearly superior technologically, and had more
of an established presense.  But Apple wanted to "own" Firewire.  So
when Intel offered an "open" alternative, everybody jumped on board
with USB.

  (Aside: Remember IBM MCA?  You'd think Apple would learn from history.)

  So now, at best, we will be stuck with USB everywhere, and Firewire
on the high-end.  There's also the possability that through sheer
dogged persistence, they'll eventually get USB working just good
enough to supplant Firewire (but still not be as nice).

  Remember, ATA "beat" SCSI in all these respects, too.  Hell, look at Windoze.

-- Ben