NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/comp/os/coherent/6464

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-27 | 1.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!ames!sun-barr!sh.wide!wnoc-kyo!astemgw!daemun.rcac!kenji
From: [e-mail] (Kenji Rikitake)
Newsgroups: comp.os.coherent
Subject: Re: Coherent 4.0.1 /dev/lp*: name incompatible with MS-DOS
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 28 Dec 92 04:54:12 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: RCAC Project, ASTEM RI, Kyoto, Japan
Lines: 25
In-reply-to: [e-mail]'s message of 27 Dec 92 16:18:21 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rick Kelly) writes:
]   Coherent and all other commercial UNIX systems are different than MSDOS.
]   Coherent looks at the parallel ports in a logical manner from low address
]   to high address.  MSDOS has it's own wierd way of addressing the ports,
]   in that it justs takes the first parallel port it finds to be lpt1, no
]   matter what it's memory address is.

Well, if you REALLY want to find out about LPTn: assignments, you have
to look into MSDOS work area.

BTW I'm not talking about whether the naming convention is logical or
not; I just complain because I got confused with the naming
difference. And I think it's not only me who would get confused by
this. So I wrote it on the NetNews. No intention to do the value
judgment.

]   Usually, it should only matter if you have more than one parallel port on
]   your system.

Agreed. BE CAREFUL, anyway, if you want to hook up a printer on an IBM PC :)

// Kenji
--
Kenji Rikitake, cyberspace samurai
<[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <...!uunet!reseau!kenji>