Re: USB Host-Host cables
On Sun 17 Jun 2018 at 20:22:22 (-0500), Richard Owlett wrote:
> On 06/17/2018 05:04 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >>That's your perspective (as someone who's stated that you have no experience
> >>at this). From the perspective of the people who tried to help you, you've
> >>chosen an obscure solution rather than a well-tested and well-documented
> >>solution for no apparent reason. (ROFL?) From the perspective of someone
> >>trying to learn something, you've chosen to learn an obscure special-purpose
> >>implementation rather than something that's fairly universal. (chuckle?)
> >Actually, IIUC the cable he got is basically two Ethernet-to-USB
> >adapters connected together via an ethernet cable, all neatly packaged
> >as a single physical object. So except for the fact that he can't use
> >any of the ethernet-to-USB adapters for some other purpose, he did get
> >what "we" recommended and is universal.
> *ROFL* * 1024^gazillion ;/
> I have what is essentially a "USB->Serial" - "Serial->USB" Cable.
> Ethernet is *NOT* involved - though there are topological similarities.
> Multiple people keep telling me that I should use THIS/THAT/OTHER
> solution inspite of *FACT* I have found them unsatisfactory!
> There is a MAJOR side benefit.
> As I am not using a canned solution, I am learning much about what
> happens in the background.
> If THEY want canned one-size-fits-all 'solutions', move to windoze!
> Get idea I'm frustrated?
> I ask "How to bake a cake?"
> I'm told "Go drive a Ford."
[snipped duplicate lines]
> I find it offensive!
> [I'm given a plethora of solutions to 'problems' I DON'T have ... ]
> [ *NOT* solutions to problems I *DO HAVE* ! ]
> In the future please answer the questions I *DO* ask, NOT what you
> wished I asked!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> End of RANT
You asked us to read and chuckle at
When I did, I read that you wanted *simple* communications between the
two computers, yet you insist on using their USB ports, which makes a
solution anthing but simple, even if you hide it by insisting on an
expensive, single-use cable: you've just bundled the complexity into
the cable hardware.
OTOH it would be far less complex to connect the computers' ethernet
ports with a length of CAT5 cable for next to no price. If the port is
broken (and it sounds as if you think it might be, but probably just
because you've never tried it) then a dongle would make sense. Either
way, communication would be conventional and simple, and you'd have a
transferrable skill just like the mid-20th century person who was
As for secure solutions, trying to avoid security will merely cut
you off from conventional networking tools where it's seen as
essential nowadays. (Try typing man rcp or man rlogin.)