[Coco] Coco Contiki

John W. Linville linville at tuxdriver.com
Tue Feb 26 12:08:30 EST 2008

On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 02:56:14AM -0700, Willard Goosey wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 01:54:12PM -0500, John W. Linville wrote:
> > I've never understood why ethernet is seen as a barrier to entry for
> > developing a coco tcp/ip stack.  90% of the code can be developed
> > just using serial hardware and SLIP framing.  If/when you get that
> > working, then adding ethernet framing, ARP, and an ethernet driver
> > will seem trivial by comparison.
> True.  I think part of it is that the "ethernet controller" chips
> under discussion have most (all?) of TCP/IP implemented in hardware,
> so our poor little 8-bit doesn't have to actually grind its way
> through the HUGE mass of code that is IP networking by itself.  

Not true.  Sure, some have discussed such device from time to time.
But if the discussion was about Contiki or the (related) uC/IP stack,
those run on bare networking hardware, not the "smart" devices you

FWIW, IP networking need not be a "HUGE mass of code".  There certainly
are implementations that could fit on a CoCo.  There could even be
room on top for an application to actually make use of it, like the
ubiquitous 'web server' example.  Are you going to be running PHP
apps on the server?  Or streaming MP3s to the CoCo?  No.  But could
you transfer files w/ TFTP, HTTP or maybe even FTP, or Telnet into
your OS-9 shell?  Probably so.

> In theory, we have SLIP, but I've never been able to get the OS-9 port
> of KA9Q to actually talk to a slip server at the other end of the
> serial line.  AFAIK no one else has, either.  Plus, the d00d never
> released his source. :-(

Just being able to use SLIP isn't really the point.  The point is
that you could develop the rest of the stack on top of a SLIP link,
then add ethernet later.  90% of the code will stay the same.

> Another part of it is hardware envy.  If the C64 can do ethernet then
> then CoCo SHOULD, too. ;-)

And if try to start at the end, you'll never get there.

Again, I'm not trying to discourage anyone.  If anything, I think
demanding ethernet as the first step is discouraging.  Adding ethernet
support should be the last step, not the first.

John W. Linville
linville at tuxdriver.com

More information about the Coco mailing list