Subject: Re: ifmedia doc wrong
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
Date: 04/22/2000 00:56:45
>> This is definitely wrong. 10base5 is "thicknet" , whereas AUI is
>> not strictly a media type at all; it's a host<->transceiver
>> interface that can be used with [...]
> I've never seen a thicknet system that wasn't connected to hosts via
> the AUI ports.
Me neither. I'e believe that 10base5 is a subset of AUI...but the
other way around is not true.
> I _think_ der Mouse's complaint is that AUI doesn't necessarily mean
> 10base5 [...]
> At this point, though .... is it really worth changing?
Is *what* really worth changing? I did say "doc wrong", not "media
name wrong". Someone proposed changing the "official" name of the
media type to AUI, with 10base5 kept for compatability; I like that
idea - but the principal point was that the doc was phrased in a way
that (incorrectly) equated AUI with 10base5. Rewriting the docs a
little would cure the biggest problem; reordering the media types so
AUI is the principal name would cure almost all the rest. (The only
remaining bit I am aware of would be the IFM_10_5 name, which while
arguably wrong (IFM_AUI?) is probably not worth changing.)
7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B