[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <973278b8-c9e5-b1cf-2e08-2ff8fd8e9aa4@linux-m68k.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2023 13:13:49 +1100 (AEDT)
From: Finn Thain <fthain@...ux-m68k.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
cc: Dan Williams <dcbw@...hat.com>,
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
linux-m68k <linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: Does anyone use Appletalk?
On Wed, 1 Nov 2023, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> If we had not removed all localtalk support already, ipddp might have
> been used to bridge between a pre-ethernet mac running macip and an IP
> based AFP server (netatalk or time machine). Without localtalk support,
> that is not all that interesting of course.
>
That line of reasoning misunderstands the value of the localtalk code (and
conveniently neglects the actual cost of keeping it in-tree).
The existing zilog driver works on all 68k and powerpc Macs with built-in
serial ports. If we were to complete that driver by adding the missing
localtalk support, it would create new opportunities for creative
users/developers who already run Linux on those systems.
Those users/developers would surely derive value from that functionality
in ways we cannot anticipate, as happens over and over again in the
(retrocomputing) community.
So the value of the missing zilog localtalk functionality would be
proportional to the number of Linux systems out there with the necessary
serial hardware. It's value is not a function of the potential business
opportunities for your sponsors, despite the prevailing incentives.
It was the potential value of the missing code for localtalk (Zilog SCC)
and Apple Sound Chip that caused me to place that work near the top of my
to-do list. But that was several years ago. Unfortunately, with bug fixing
and recapping, I still can't find time to write the necessary code.
So I can't object to the removal of the localtalk code. But I do object to
the underhand manner in which it is done.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists