[Coco] Coco to PC cable

[Frank Pittel]

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