Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: MassiveProng on 5 Mar 2007 22:26 On Mon, 05 Mar 07 16:01:29 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >And one controller could have many devices hanging off it. Nope. MFM as well as ESDI carried only two drives per channel. SCSI is the exception, and has always carried many "ports" per channel. That is due to the fact that the interface, SCSI, is meant for more than hard drives.
From: MassiveProng on 5 Mar 2007 22:27 On Mon, 05 Mar 07 16:01:29 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >Apparently, that doesn't happen at the moment. From your >descriptions, it appears there a 1::1 restriction. More proof that you are clueless.
From: MassiveProng on 5 Mar 2007 22:35 On 05 Mar 2007 22:35:36 +0200, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> Gave us: >From your sentence, I must conclude that you take pretty >strong mind altering substances. (Footpowder most likely.) > Gold Bond! One hears about it every time one visits an old folks home. They rant about it, and a close inspection revels a white residue around their respiratory orifices (or is that orifii?). Heheheheh...
From: MassiveProng on 5 Mar 2007 23:03 On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 02:27:00 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) Gave us: >"SCSI controller" usually refers to the stuff that is making the SCSI >interface go. This shouldn't really be included in the "disk drive >controller" term. Things other than disk drives have been hung off SCSI >interfaces. Tape drives would be the simplest example of this. The SCSI >bus has to be general enough that such things can be done. Yet it is STILL a "controller". Doesn't matter whether it's a scanner or printer or plotter or hard drive, it hangs on the SCSI bus, and is connected to the SCSI controller. It is a device controller, so yes, calling it a drive controller is not correct. I guess the exception would be a dedicated RAID type controller card that utilizes the SCSI bus as its interface method. Hey! You got one right!
From: jmfbahciv on 6 Mar 2007 06:33
In article <aclpu21vlpoq3vjnls8etfli6ki33plrph(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Mon, 05 Mar 07 12:16:22 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > >>In article <3e6mu2tth78co1kfsatf1lefssf7865l6f(a)4ax.com>, >> MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >>>On Sun, 04 Mar 07 12:35:48 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >>> >>>> >>>>Yes,yes. Is this hardware or software? Note, for the purposes >>>>of this discussion, firmware is soft. Oh, and exclude optical-- >>>>I don't understand that stuff. >>> >>> Bwuahahahahahah! >>> >>> So, you have no clue as to why logical block addressing was even >>>introduced? >>> >>> You scream "knows nothing" with your every post! >>> >>> Tell us... how many times, while you were "at the library" did you >>>ever visit the "wikipedea" page? Your answer will be quite revealing. >> >>No times. Wikipedia cannot be trusted to be correct. Most of >>the stuff we learned not to do has never been documented. > > Bwuahahahahahah! > > You should have qualified that as: "A small percentage of wikipedia >entries cannot be trusted as being correct." > > The one thing you should have learned not to do, whether documented >or not, is act like you know something which you do not. That is >where you are in most of the discussions in this thread. At the moment, there is a controversy going on about the Wikipedia entry about VM. The consensus of bit gods is that both sides are wrong. So why should I use Wikipedia for a reference of definitions when I know they are wrong and are not likely to be corrected anytime soon, if at all. /BAH |