Terminal emulators

On Jan 19, 9:26=A0pm, Cesar Rabak <csra...@bol.com.br> wrote:
> larwe escreveu:
>
> > On Jan 18, 11:42 am, Cesar Rabak <csra...@bol.com.br> wrote:
>
> >> Always is a strong word. I agree buying a USB serial port could be
> >> atractive to keep legacy apps/boards/devices available, but IMHO not a
> >> great idea for new developments.
>
> > There is still nothing as simple as an asynchronous serial port, and
> > this is likely to be the case for a long long time. In one form or
> > another, we'll have emulated serial ports for a very long time to
> > come.
>
> If you and your organization share this belief and this solution is good
> enough gor for it!
>
> > Moving away from simple serial interfaces takes you down one of two
> > unfortunate paths:
>
> > - Interfaces like Ethernet can be nice and generic, but they're
> > implementationally complex and costly on the device end.
>
> > - Interfaces like USB can be implementationally "simple" on the device
> > end =A0(in the sense that you might just have to switch to a USB micro,
> > and add the connector) but now you have the burden of developing and
> > supporting proprietary device drivers, which OS vendors are constantly
> > working to break.
>
> You're right about the paths but I don't agree totally on your
> 'unfortunate' judgment.
>
> --
> Cesar Rabak

You post about not liking the serial port approach although you really
have not explained what is wrong with it other than the fact that a
USB serial adapter is required.  Also, you have not offered any
alternatives.  Can you elucidate us?

Rick

rickman escreveu:
> Cesar Rabak wrote:
>> Roger Ivie escreveu:
>>> On 2009-01-17, Cesar Rabak <csrabak@bol.com.br> wrote:
>>>> Using the serial port was OK some years ago, but presently you may get
>>>> your fingers burned as some newer machines do not come with this port
>>>> anymore.
>>> You can always buy a USB serial port.
>> Always is a strong word. I agree buying a USB serial port could be
>> atractive to keep legacy apps/boards/devices available, but IMHO not a
>> great idea for new developments.
> 
> Can I ask what you would suggest?  How would you interface to the test
> fixture?
> 
I agree with some of other posters (as I came back later to this thread).

Summarizing:

If you're not in control of the fixture, then find the bridge between 
the hosts you intend to support and your test fixture (including USB 
serial port or fitting "multi I/O" boards back into your computers to 
regain access to serial ports).

If you are in control or participate of the development of the fixture, 
consider theoretically 'more complex' interfaces which today can be 
implemented more easily due the availability of 'canned' solutions like 
Ethernet (including some 32 devices that come with free or affordable 
TCP/IP stacks) or implementing USB.

If your gear is not for internal use only but may be put in the market I 
would suggest you also consider the feasibility of going to LXI as if 
would easier in the long run to create richer applications on the host 
side and interop with other instruments.




-- 
Cesar Rabak
GNU/Linux User 52247.
Get counted: http://counter.li.org/

On Jan 19, 9:26=A0pm, Cesar Rabak <csra...@bol.com.br> wrote:

> > There is still nothing as simple as an asynchronous serial port, and
> > this is likely to be the case for a long long time. In one form or
> > another, we'll have emulated serial ports for a very long time to
> > come.
>
> If you and your organization share this belief and this solution is good
> enough gor for it!

It is perfectly adequate for many tasks - much home automation, HVAC,
etc etc.

Although I'm not the OP I will say this: I work for a Fortune 500
company, and we put async serial ports on our new-generation products
as well as the legacy ones. Like it or not a UART is a simple, quasi-
universal and fairly future-proof way to interface to the rest of the
world. Our devices are installed and expected to run for 20 years. 20
years from now I seriously doubt that today's USB 1.x, 2.x and 3.x
devices will even plug into any contemporary computer, and I can
safely bet you any amount of money that 2009's device drivers won't
load in 2029's operating systems. However I can pretty much guarantee
that there will be some piece of COTS hardware that plugs into 2029's
general-purpose computers to provide an RS232 port.

This territory is covered periodically in this NG and I haven't seen a
convincing argument in another direction in the .. what .. ten years?
more? that I've been posting and lurking here.

On Jan 18, 12:21=A0pm, Roger Ivie <ri...@ridgenet.net> wrote:
> On 2009-01-18, larwe <zwsdot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 18, 1:03=A0pm, Roger Ivie <ri...@ridgenet.net> wrote:
>
> >> So, your answer is to build the USB serial port into the target
> >> hardware? I loled.
>
> > It's a frequently-used approach.
>
> But if you're uneasy enough with the future availability of USB serial po=
rts
> to hassle me about saying "you can always buy one", how is building one o=
f
> them into the device a solution?
> --

So the customer doesn't have to go out and buy one. But the only
customer seems to be Rick, and in Forth KISS is king.

-Brad

On Jan 21, 8:33=A0am, Cesar Rabak <csra...@bol.com.br> wrote:

> It is not a like or dislike thing, it is a fact of life newer machines
> come without serial ports and adapters are, well adapters, which I see
> as a good fit for legacy apps/boards.

Whatever industry you work in clearly has no eye to device longevity.
If making cellphones or mice or MP3 players or game controllers that
the user is expected to replace every year, fine. If making anything
industrial or commercial, ha!

rickman escreveu:
> On Jan 19, 9:26 pm, Cesar Rabak <csra...@bol.com.br> wrote:
>> larwe escreveu:
>>
>>> On Jan 18, 11:42 am, Cesar Rabak <csra...@bol.com.br> wrote:
>>>> Always is a strong word. I agree buying a USB serial port could be
>>>> atractive to keep legacy apps/boards/devices available, but IMHO not a
>>>> great idea for new developments.
>>> There is still nothing as simple as an asynchronous serial port, and
>>> this is likely to be the case for a long long time. In one form or
>>> another, we'll have emulated serial ports for a very long time to
>>> come.
>> If you and your organization share this belief and this solution is good
>> enough gor for it!
>>
>>> Moving away from simple serial interfaces takes you down one of two
>>> unfortunate paths:
>>> - Interfaces like Ethernet can be nice and generic, but they're
>>> implementationally complex and costly on the device end.
>>> - Interfaces like USB can be implementationally "simple" on the device
>>> end  (in the sense that you might just have to switch to a USB micro,
>>> and add the connector) but now you have the burden of developing and
>>> supporting proprietary device drivers, which OS vendors are constantly
>>> working to break.
>> You're right about the paths but I don't agree totally on your
>> 'unfortunate' judgment.
>>
>> --
>> Cesar Rabak
> 
> You post about not liking the serial port approach although you really
> have not explained what is wrong with it other than the fact that a
> USB serial adapter is required.  Also, you have not offered any
> alternatives.  Can you elucidate us?
> 
> Rick
What part of my post of January, 18th did not you understand?

It is not a like or dislike thing, it is a fact of life newer machines 
come without serial ports and adapters are, well adapters, which I see 
as a good fit for legacy apps/boards.

OTOH, if your organization share your views and find developing a board 
today to be used with a serial adapter and a MMI from the eighties, no 
sweat!


-- 
Cesar Rabak
GNU/Linux User 52247.
Get counted: http://counter.li.org/

On Jan 21, 8:33=A0am, Cesar Rabak <csra...@bol.com.br> wrote:
> rickman escreveu:
>
> > On Jan 19, 9:26 pm, Cesar Rabak <csra...@bol.com.br> wrote:
> >> larwe escreveu:
>
> >>> On Jan 18, 11:42 am, Cesar Rabak <csra...@bol.com.br> wrote:
> >>>> Always is a strong word. I agree buying a USB serial port could be
> >>>> atractive to keep legacy apps/boards/devices available, but IMHO not=
 a
> >>>> great idea for new developments.
> >>> There is still nothing as simple as an asynchronous serial port, and
> >>> this is likely to be the case for a long long time. In one form or
> >>> another, we'll have emulated serial ports for a very long time to
> >>> come.
> >> If you and your organization share this belief and this solution is go=
od
> >> enough gor for it!
>
> >>> Moving away from simple serial interfaces takes you down one of two
> >>> unfortunate paths:
> >>> - Interfaces like Ethernet can be nice and generic, but they're
> >>> implementationally complex and costly on the device end.
> >>> - Interfaces like USB can be implementationally "simple" on the devic=
e
> >>> end =A0(in the sense that you might just have to switch to a USB micr=
o,
> >>> and add the connector) but now you have the burden of developing and
> >>> supporting proprietary device drivers, which OS vendors are constantl=
y
> >>> working to break.
> >> You're right about the paths but I don't agree totally on your
> >> 'unfortunate' judgment.
>
> >> --
> >> Cesar Rabak
>
> > You post about not liking the serial port approach although you really
> > have not explained what is wrong with it other than the fact that a
> > USB serial adapter is required. =A0Also, you have not offered any
> > alternatives. =A0Can you elucidate us?
>
> > Rick
>
> What part of my post of January, 18th did not you understand?

Are you asking a real question or just being rude?  I explained very
clearly what I was asking about.  You have said some things about
serial ports without supporting the statements, for example "not a
great idea for new developments".  What is "not great" about using
serial ports?  I'm just asking you to explain the basis for your
opinion.


> It is not a like or dislike thing, it is a fact of life newer machines
> come without serial ports and adapters are, well adapters, which I see
> as a good fit for legacy apps/boards.

Yes, they are a good fit.  But that does not make it a *bad* fit for
any other applications.


> OTOH, if your organization share your views and find developing a board
> today to be used with a serial adapter and a MMI from the eighties, no
> sweat!

I am typing this on a PC (bought a few months ago) that is 90% from
the 80's when the PC was first designed.  In reality, although they
may look different, PCs have a ***huge*** legacy content.  Does that
mean you don't want to use them?  In fact, isn't the Internet
originally from that era?  You are using that as well aren't you?

The fact that you judge serial ports as being "legacy" does not mean
they shouldn't be used in new designs.  Here is an excellent example
of why.  Much GPS equipment has used RS-232 serial port for NMEA
compatible comms.  There is no USB on the go equivalent.  But many new
units are coming out with only a USB port.  So this new equipment is
not compatible with applications requiring communications with other
GPS equipment, not because the other equipment is "old", but because
USB just won't work in this application.

Do you really have anything to say on this or are you just trolling?

Rick

In message 
<8a411655-4c62-4490-9f21-8cd7835e32bb@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, 
rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes
>The fact that you judge serial ports as being "legacy" does not mean
>they shouldn't be used in new designs.  Here is an excellent example
>of why.  Much GPS equipment has used RS-232 serial port for NMEA
>compatible comms.  There is no USB on the go equivalent.  But many new
>units are coming out with only a USB port.  So this new equipment is
>not compatible with applications requiring communications with other
>GPS equipment, not because the other equipment is "old", but because
>USB just won't work in this application.

The problem depends on your application domain. 90% of MCU have serial 
port and any one can do serial comms in 10 minutes which both hands tied 
behind their back.

For this reason many embedded systems have serial comms.  My washing 
machine for example.

The problem is that many modern laptops don't have a serial port. Most 
desktop PC's still have one AFAIK but lots of USB so many consumer items 
have USB.

USB is not the easiest thing to just knock up from scratch in an 
embedded system.

Also serial is universal and things like VT52 or VT100 you can almost do 
in your sleep for virtually any screen.

If PC's drop the one serial port most AFAIK mother boards have then 
RS232 is not a good idea. But there is so much industrial use of RS232 
that I doubt it will happen for a long time

-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

rickman escreveu:
> On Jan 21, 8:33 am, Cesar Rabak <csra...@bol.com.br> wrote:
[snipped]

>> What part of my post of January, 18th did not you understand?
> 
> Are you asking a real question or just being rude?

I asked a real question.
> I explained very clearly what I was asking about.

You're not and was not clear...

> You have said some things about serial ports without supporting the
> statements, for example "not a great idea for new developments".
> What is "not great" about using serial ports?  I'm just asking you to
> explain the basis for your opinion.

My opinion is that since it will be less likely new computers will come
with serial ports, for *new* developments it is wiser to use an
up-to-date comm solution.

> 
> 
>> It is not a like or dislike thing, it is a fact of life newer
>> machines come without serial ports and adapters are, well adapters,
>> which I see as a good fit for legacy apps/boards.
> 
> Yes, they are a good fit.  But that does not make it a *bad* fit for 
> any other applications.

Well each of us are entitled to right of having an opinion, and since
you see the thing in a way we're not going to concur, OK.

> 
> 
>> OTOH, if your organization share your views and find developing a
>> board today to be used with a serial adapter and a MMI from the
>> eighties, no sweat!
> 
> I am typing this on a PC (bought a few months ago) that is 90% from 
> the 80's when the PC was first designed.  In reality, although they 
> may look different, PCs have a ***huge*** legacy content.  Does that 
> mean you don't want to use them?  In fact, isn't the Internet 
> originally from that era?  You are using that as well aren't you?

Non sequitur.

> 
> The fact that you judge serial ports as being "legacy" does not mean 
> they shouldn't be used in new designs.  Here is an excellent example 
> of why.  Much GPS equipment has used RS-232 serial port for NMEA 
> compatible comms.  There is no USB on the go equivalent.  But many
> new units are coming out with only a USB port.  So this new equipment
> is not compatible with applications requiring communications with
> other GPS equipment, not because the other equipment is "old", but
> because USB just won't work in this application.

I'm not alone in considering 'legacy', the industry that supplies us
with computers considered as well, in fact they did in a very concrete
way: most models don't com with a single one anymore!

> 
> Do you really have anything to say on this or are you just trolling?
> 
Rick: if you dislike my opinions or think I'm trolling, please make a
favor for both of us putting me in your kill list and don't reply to my 
posts!

OTOH, if you wrote this in your bad fifteen minutes, be less agressive!

-- 
Cesar Rabak
GNU/Linux User 52247.
Get counted: http://counter.li.org/

On Jan 21, 2:47=A0pm, Cesar Rabak <csra...@bol.com.br> wrote:
> rickman escreveu:> On Jan 21, 8:33 am, Cesar Rabak <csra...@bol.com.br> w=
rote:
>
> [snipped]
>
> >> What part of my post of January, 18th did not you understand?
>
> > Are you asking a real question or just being rude?
>
> I asked a real question.
>
> > I explained very clearly what I was asking about.
>
> You're not and was not clear...

Ok, we can go back and forth if you want.  You have not said
*anything* about what I asked or said that was not clear.  If you just
want to contradict everything I say, we will get nowhere.  How about
some details of what you don't understand?


> > You have said some things about serial ports without supporting the
> > statements, for example "not a great idea for new developments".
> > What is "not great" about using serial ports? =A0I'm just asking you to
> > explain the basis for your opinion.
>
> My opinion is that since it will be less likely new computers will come
> with serial ports, for *new* developments it is wiser to use an
> up-to-date comm solution.

Yes, you keep repeating this and we have answered that.  Computers
don't come with everything everyone needs and never will.  Just as
most computers don't come with firewire, but it can be added, does not
mean it is a "legacy" interface that should be avoided.  There are
many devices that work much better over firewire than they do USB.

The same way, RS-232 can be added to any PC that supports USB and at a
fraction of the cost of adding USB to a piece of hardware, not to
mention the complexity (translate to PITA) of adding custom software
to support a USB interface to a custom device.

Isn't that clear?


> >> It is not a like or dislike thing, it is a fact of life newer
> >> machines come without serial ports and adapters are, well adapters,
> >> which I see as a good fit for legacy apps/boards.
>
> > Yes, they are a good fit. =A0But that does not make it a *bad* fit for
> > any other applications.
>
> Well each of us are entitled to right of having an opinion, and since
> you see the thing in a way we're not going to concur, OK.

I'm not asking you to change your mind, I'm asking you to explain it.
If the only issue is the fact that RS-232 is only provided by use of
an adapter, then I guess that is your issue.  I see the adapter as a
useful thing that allows me to attach a simple interface to a computer
that is otherwise complex to interfaced to.

The other issue is that I haven't seen any suggestion on what you
would add to a text fixture for comms to a PC.  Actually that is not
totally correct.  I did see a post that suggested the use of
Ethernet.  I hope that you can see the high cost of Ethernet, both in
recurring and non-recurring costs, makes it prohibitive for many
apps.


> >> OTOH, if your organization share your views and find developing a
> >> board today to be used with a serial adapter and a MMI from the
> >> eighties, no sweat!
>
> > I am typing this on a PC (bought a few months ago) that is 90% from
> > the 80's when the PC was first designed. =A0In reality, although they
> > may look different, PCs have a ***huge*** legacy content. =A0Does that
> > mean you don't want to use them? =A0In fact, isn't the Internet
> > originally from that era? =A0You are using that as well aren't you?
>
> Non sequitur.

Ok, you don't seem to want to really discuss this.  Calling it a non
sequitur does not make is so.  It is an analogy and an accurate one at
that.  Your only objection to using RS-232 is that it is "legacy".
That is irrelevant to anyone who is trying to get a job done in a real
application.

As a "legacy" interface it is still supported on ***every*** PC made
that has USB and it will likely ***always*** be supported until PCs
are very different animals which will likely not be in my lifetime.


> > The fact that you judge serial ports as being "legacy" does not mean
> > they shouldn't be used in new designs. =A0Here is an excellent example
> > of why. =A0Much GPS equipment has used RS-232 serial port for NMEA
> > compatible comms. =A0There is no USB on the go equivalent. =A0But many
> > new units are coming out with only a USB port. =A0So this new equipment
> > is not compatible with applications requiring communications with
> > other GPS equipment, not because the other equipment is "old", but
> > because USB just won't work in this application.
>
> I'm not alone in considering 'legacy', the industry that supplies us
> with computers considered as well, in fact they did in a very concrete
> way: most models don't com with a single one anymore!

Legacy is not a bad word and does not make the serial port a bad
thing.  I just means the manufacturers have decided that the "costs"
of providing the serial port (mostly the use of space by the
connector) is not worth the marketing advantage.  It has nothing to do
with the utility in many applications.


> > Do you really have anything to say on this or are you just trolling?
>
> Rick: if you dislike my opinions or think I'm trolling, please make a
> favor for both of us putting me in your kill list and don't reply to my
> posts!
>
> OTOH, if you wrote this in your bad fifteen minutes, be less agressive!

I'm certainly not trying to be aggressive, but your posts appear to be
such.  I will be happy to end this discussion, but I was giving you
the benefit of the doubt that you really wanted to discuss this.  I
was also thinking that maybe you wanted to learn something about why
engineers use the interfaces they do.  If you have nothing further to
say on the matter, that is fine with me.

Rick