Re: Connecting an Apple ][e to a Mac

[nathan@visi.com (Nathan Mates)]

In article <6772ek$1u4$1@opal.southwind.net>,
Randy Shackelford <shack@onyx.southwind.net> wrote:
>Nathan's just torqued off because he can't network his IIgs to whatever
>kind of brand X box he has.

   GS/TCP (which I helped debug the kernel for) and now Marinetti are
and have been doing great. I can telnet out from my GS, xfer files at
will, and do anything else I want to do. I believe in giving each
computer enough HD space that they can store all the apps and data
files they commonly use, so I don't need xfer lots of files. [And when
I want a LOT of files downloaded, I use the partial T1 at work and
sneakernet a Zipdisk home from the PCs there.] Sorry, but the state
the 'network' is in at home suits me just fine. I suppose in the
Apple-worshipping Cult of Shackleford, that's "not" networking, but
that's because he's just brainwashed. 

   TCP/IP is a *far* better protocol overall than Appletalk, doesn't
require specific hardware, and doesn't require Apple to write
everything you use. And with Apple not giving Apple II folks anything
since 1993 or so, that not being dependent on 1 source is a darn
useful thing. But, hey, if you're so blinded you automatically
distrust anything without a fruity stamp of approval on the software,
I guess that's your loss.

>But if it is too complicated for him like he lets on, someone can
>provide him with some remedial localtalk wiring help I'm sure.

   Sorry, don't run Appletalk in any form, mostly because I own zero
Macs, and I don't mind letting only one of my GSs dump source code
(40+ feet of assembly)to the imagewriter. I'd get a serial switchbox
if I wanted the other Apple IIs to print; the HP Deskjet works great
for the higher quality stuff-- and a parallel autosensing switch works
great there. 

>BTW, didn't Steve Jobs say that simplicity is the ultimate sophistocation?
>That makes Nathan a Jobs disciple, judging from that last paragraph. 

   Nope, Steve Jobs is Mr. "Insanely Incompatible." He'll go with new
crud that breaks everything else just because he thinks it's cool. I
value things *working* foremost, and bastard hacks requiring special
hardware far less.

>That's not to say that I agree that a null modem is simpler than
>localtalk, 'cause it ain't.

   What was that about somebody needing help? Especially needing help
using their brain to understand that non-Apple software is sometimes
pretty damn good. In both cases, you have to set up the wiring, install
software, and run things. For the brainless who think that the software
that came with the computer is all they'll ever need, they'll feel that
any non Apple-blessed software is "complex", but we'll leave them off
in a fantasyland. 

Nathan Mates
--
<*> Nathan Mates http://www.visi.com/~nathan/      <*>
# This posting is copyright Nathan Mates, and may not be reprinted
# in full, partial, or quoted form on any archive site associated with
# Charles Turley.