[lkml]   [2000]   [Feb]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Scheduled Transfer Protocol on Linux
On Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 10:15:51AM -0700, Ray L wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 04:33:16AM -0800, Karen Shaeffer wrote:
> >
> > I disagree with several of your assertions--but any further discussion is
> > moot. You have the final word.
> if you think someone is mistaken on a technical issue, *and* if you have
> the real world experience to back up your argument, please do continue the
> discussion. just because you got shot down the other day for saying
> something silly and offtopic, it does not follow that you will get roasted
> for talking about hard drive technology. (well, you still might, but it's
> a lot less likely :-)

> Ray Lehtiniemi ( (
---end quoted text---

[OT]I don't attach my ego to my work[1]. My two posts concerning a minimum standard
of conduct speak for themselves and are self-contained. There is no merit to
injecting it here.

Concerning the technical issue. I answered the basic question, "can a general
purpose processor be _welded_ onto the front end of a disk drive?" That was
the extent of my post. Steve looked at it another way, concurring with my
conclusion--it could not, relying on BOM analysis. My disagreements with
Steve over several of his peripheral "commentary" like assertions are clearly
moot in the root context of that discussion. To be fair, Steve extended my
comments, addressing the interface issue as well, considering the proposed
utilization of a general purpose processor as a potential implementation of
the more general and clearly more interesting to this group--proposed
interface. His discussion was abstracted interface-centric, mine was

I would just say I have not asserted that the disk drive industry would have
any technical problems designing a next generation interface of whatever
specs[2]... The truth is those interface issues are more determined by the
downstream OEM's and industry consortiums.[3] Of course lead time would be a
factor determined by the disk drive industry.

So what can _you_ glean from this mess? If you can't find discussion of a
proposed interface in an industry consortium forum, it is very unlikely to
become a reality anytime soon. OEM requirements for second source
availability strongly discourages independent, secretive interface

I'll have to leave it there--I am very busy.

... One is sharply conscious, yet without regret, of the limits to the
possibility of mutual understanding and sympathy with one's fellow-creatures.
Such a person no doubt loses something in the way of geniality and light-
heartedness; on the opinions, habits, and judgements of his fellows and
avoids the temptation to take his stand on such insecure foundations.

[2]My assertion is that they will not be employing a general purpose
processor under any circumstances.

[3]So in this limited context, Steve's assertion, that the front end interface
is decoupled from the back end electronics, is accurate. But the
implementation of the interface is not decoupled. It will be integrated into
the same chip as the core backend processor. This is an absolute.

Karen Shaeffer
Neuralscape; (831) 426-8547
Santa Cruz, Ca. 95060

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:56    [W:0.050 / U:0.092 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site