[Coco] Coco to PC cable

[John W. Linville]

On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 02:31:10PM -0500, Boisy Pitre wrote:

> 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?

As a resident member of the open source crowd, I feel compelled
to raise my hand. :-)  I think you have covered the major points
benefiting the users (or "customers") of the two projects.  There is
also the added benefit of developer cooperation -- for example,
CoCoNet could grow printing functionality without having to spend
development resources on the server.

I'd like to commend Boisy for opening-up DriveWire sources, and I
would also note that the DriveWire protocol has been well documented
for some time.  IMHO everyone developing CoCo-related software could
take that lesson to heart.  Afterall, no one is going to get rich
off this community anyway. :-)

Cooperative development is the way to go.  It exands the potential
user base and the potential developer base, while not fragmenting
the community any worse than it already is between RSDOS and NitrOS-9.

John
-- 
John W. Linville		Someday the world will need a hero, and you
linville at tuxdriver.com			might be all we have.  Be ready.