In article <s2c72ix26c.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor>, Carlos E. R.
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> >>>> I remmeber when speed standards for communication were up to 9600 baud.
> >>>> Imaging having to stick to that over a RS232 25 way D-connector.
> >>>
> >>> That was nothing to do with any government or regional pact decree.
> >>> That was an industry-derived standard.
> >>
> >> not a very good one, with substantial variances in voltage, pinouts and
> >> handshaking.
> >>
> >
> > Kept the world going for decades, with relatively few complications - in
> > the professional arena at least.
>
> Still going on :-)

no it isn't, other than for legacy devices, which area extremely rare.

On 27/09/2021 02.34, nospam wrote:
> In article <s2c72ix26c.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor>, Carlos E. R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>>> I remmeber when speed standards for communication were up to 9600 baud.
>>>>>> Imaging having to stick to that over a RS232 25 way D-connector.
>>>>>
>>>>> That was nothing to do with any government or regional pact decree.
>>>>> That was an industry-derived standard.
>>>>
>>>> not a very good one, with substantial variances in voltage, pinouts and
>>>> handshaking.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Kept the world going for decades, with relatively few complications - in
>>> the professional arena at least.
>>
>> Still going on :-)
>
> no it isn't, other than for legacy devices, which area extremely rare.
>

nospam is wrong of course™.

Cisco routers, for example. Or IoT gadgets. Or the Raspberry Pi.

Google "where is rs232 used today?" and you will see examples.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 27/09/2021 02.33, nospam wrote:
> In article <7vb72ix26c.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor>, Carlos E. R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> changing connectors is disruptive. it will instantly annoy more than a
>>> billion people and cause *substantial* waste, for no benefit.
>>
>> But there will be no change on existing devices, only new devices are
>> affected, thus no issue.
>
> there is very much an issue because people will need to replace their
> existing cables, docks, accessories when they upgrade to a new phone

Tsk, tsk, same cables and accessories for me.

>
> most people hand down their old phones to their kids or other family
> members, so they still need to keep the old stuff around.

Not an issue for us.

>
>> Anyway, your problems with the EU rule are irrelevant, it will happen,
>> so better take it in good spirits - or not, maybe those in the USA will
>> not be affected :-P
>
> it's currently a proposal and will likely change before it's finalized.

Not substantially.

>
> keep in mind they want to mandate using a connector that is nearly ten
> years old.

:-P

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 27/09/2021 02.33, nospam wrote:
> In article <qYmdnQ_Hi_NIcs38nZ2dnUU7-a3NnZ2d@giganews.com>, geoff
> <geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:
>
>>>>> I remmeber when speed standards for communication were up to 9600 baud.
>>>>> Imaging having to stick to that over a RS232 25 way D-connector.
>>>>
>>>> That was nothing to do with any government or regional pact decree.
>>>> That was an industry-derived standard.
>>>
>>> not a very good one, with substantial variances in voltage, pinouts and
>>> handshaking.
>>>
>>
>> Kept the world going for decades, with relatively few complications - in
>> the professional arena at least.
>
> actually, there were numerous complications.
>
> in addition to what's listed above above, add dce/dte, null-modem
> cables, gender changers, bit rate and data/start/parity bits.
>
> since the signaling voltage varied from +/-3 to 15v, some devices would
> not work with other devices.
>
> there were even breakout boxes to debug it:
>
> <https://through-the-interface.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83452464869e201b7c952
> 823d970b-pi>
>
> even the connector wasn't standardized. companies soon realized only a
> few pins were needed, so they used db-9 instead of db-25, resulting in
> adapters, or they used a custom non-standard adapter.
>
> <https://www.l-com.com/Content/Images/Product/Large/DGL259FF-IBM_500x500
> _View1.jpg>
>
> it was anything *but* standard.
>

It was a standard, just that some failed to implement the standard
correctly.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

In article <2gm72ixn1g.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor>, Carlos E. R.
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> >>>>>> I remmeber when speed standards for communication were up to 9600 baud.
> >>>>>> Imaging having to stick to that over a RS232 25 way D-connector.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That was nothing to do with any government or regional pact decree.
> >>>>> That was an industry-derived standard.
> >>>>
> >>>> not a very good one, with substantial variances in voltage, pinouts and
> >>>> handshaking.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Kept the world going for decades, with relatively few complications - in
> >>> the professional arena at least.
> >>
> >> Still going on :-)
> >
> > no it isn't, other than for legacy devices, which area extremely rare.

>
> Cisco routers,

some networking equipment does have a console serial port, but that's
one of the rare exceptions. it's also legacy and not normally needed.
the web ui or ssh is more than sufficient in nearly every case.

> for example. Or IoT gadgets.

such as which ones?

i've yet to see an iot device that has an rs232 port. they normally use
wifi, bluetooth and/or usb, depending on the device.

> Or the Raspberry Pi.

the raspberry pi does *not* have rs-232. what are you smoking?

depending on which pi, there is usb, ethernet, wifi and/or bluetooth.

the pi zero has *only* usb, although it does support some usb-ethernet
adapters without drivers.

it's possible to use one or more pins on the gpi expansion port for
serial communication, but that is not an rs-232 port.

In article <lim72ixn1g.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor>, Carlos E. R.
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> > it was anything *but* standard.
> >
>
> It was a standard, just that some failed to implement the standard
> correctly.

not a very good standard since there was a substantial amount of
variance in how it could be implemented.

In article <imm72ixn1g.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor>, Carlos E. R.
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> >>> changing connectors is disruptive. it will instantly annoy more than a
> >>> billion people and cause *substantial* waste, for no benefit.
> >>
> >> But there will be no change on existing devices, only new devices are
> >> affected, thus no issue.
> >
> > there is very much an issue because people will need to replace their
> > existing cables, docks, accessories when they upgrade to a new phone
>
> Tsk, tsk, same cables and accessories for me.

that's wonderful, but there are more than a billion people who have
lightning devices (not just iphones) and will be adversely affected,
generating a significant amount of waste when forced to replace their
cables and accessories after buying a new device.

> > most people hand down their old phones to their kids or other family
> > members, so they still need to keep the old stuff around.
>
> Not an issue for us.

see above.

> >> Anyway, your problems with the EU rule are irrelevant, it will happen,
> >> so better take it in good spirits - or not, maybe those in the USA will
> >> not be affected :-P
> >
> > it's currently a proposal and will likely change before it's finalized.
>
> Not substantially.

that remains to be seen.

the micro-usb mandate ended up allowing an adapter.

> > keep in mind they want to mandate using a connector that is nearly ten
> > years old.
>
>
> :-P

this is one of the most significant problems with it.

On 27/09/2021 1:33 pm, nospam wrote:
> In article <qYmdnQ_Hi_NIcs38nZ2dnUU7-a3NnZ2d@giganews.com>, geoff
> <geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:
>
>>>>> I remmeber when speed standards for communication were up to 9600 baud.
>>>>> Imaging having to stick to that over a RS232 25 way D-connector.
>>>>
>>>> That was nothing to do with any government or regional pact decree.
>>>> That was an industry-derived standard.
>>>
>>> not a very good one, with substantial variances in voltage, pinouts and
>>> handshaking.
>>>
>>
>> Kept the world going for decades, with relatively few complications - in
>> the professional arena at least.
>
> actually, there were numerous complications.
>
> in addition to what's listed above above, add dce/dte, null-modem
> cables, gender changers,

No 'complications there.

bit rate and data/start/parity bits.

Nothing to do with the *connector*.

>
> since the signaling voltage varied from +/-3 to 15v, some devices would
> not work with other devices.

Any compliant device should work with voltages within that range. Don't
blame the standard, or the connector (!), for non-compliant devices.
>
> there were even breakout boxes to debug it:

I have one on by desk here right now. A IDS Model 60. Used more for
making sure the signals were actually present, but also able to split
and configure alternative scenarios.

> <https://through-the-interface.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83452464869e201b7c952
> 823d970b-pi>
>
> even the connector wasn't standardized. companies soon realized only a
> few pins were needed, so they used db-9 instead of db-25, resulting in
> adapters, or they used a custom non-standard adapter.

Two different connectors (DB-25 and DB-9) for different levels and types
of use.

And various adaptors likewise. For specific purposes, usually not
industry-standard professional data-communications devices.

> <https://www.l-com.com/Content/Images/Product/Large/DGL259FF-IBM_500x500
> _View1.jpg>
>
> it was anything *but* standard.

Very standard. But not one unique connector for all uses, which would be
stupid.

I'd call it more 'versatile'. Only the pins required for a device needed
be present or used. Not counting non-RS-232/EIA uses.

You also seem to have trouble differentiating between the connector and
it's uses.

geoff

On 27/09/2021 3:56 pm, nospam wrote:
> In article <lim72ixn1g.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor>, Carlos E. R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> it was anything *but* standard.
>>>
>>
>> It was a standard, just that some failed to implement the standard
>> correctly.
>
> not a very good standard since there was a substantial amount of
> variance in how it could be implemented.
>

It was pretty much all there was at the time. So got used for all sorts
of things.

geoff

On 27/09/2021 3:56 pm, nospam wrote:
> In article <lim72ixn1g.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor>, Carlos E. R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> it was anything *but* standard.
>>>
>>
>> It was a standard, just that some failed to implement the standard
>> correctly.
>
> not a very good standard since there was a substantial amount of
> variance in how it could be implemented.
>

How many different standard DB-25 and DB-9 plugs/sockets can you describe ?

geoff

On 27/09/2021 3:56 pm, nospam wrote:
> In article <2gm72ixn1g.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor>, Carlos E. R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> I remmeber when speed standards for communication were up to 9600 baud.
>>>>>>>> Imaging having to stick to that over a RS232 25 way D-connector.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That was nothing to do with any government or regional pact decree.
>>>>>>> That was an industry-derived standard.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> not a very good one, with substantial variances in voltage, pinouts and
>>>>>> handshaking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Kept the world going for decades, with relatively few complications - in
>>>>> the professional arena at least.
>>>>
>>>> Still going on :-)
>>>
>>> no it isn't, other than for legacy devices, which area extremely rare.
>
>
>>
>> Cisco routers,
>
> some networking equipment does have a console serial port, but that's
> one of the rare exceptions. it's also legacy and not normally needed.
> the web ui or ssh is more than sufficient in nearly every case.
>
>> for example. Or IoT gadgets.
>
> such as which ones?
>
> i've yet to see an iot device that has an rs232 port. they normally use
> wifi, bluetooth and/or usb, depending on the device.
>
>> Or the Raspberry Pi.
>
> the raspberry pi does *not* have rs-232. what are you smoking?
>
> depending on which pi, there is usb, ethernet, wifi and/or bluetooth.
>
> the pi zero has *only* usb, although it does support some usb-ethernet
> adapters without drivers.
>
> it's possible to use one or more pins on the gpi expansion port for
> serial communication, but that is not an rs-232 port.
>

20 seconds on google will tell you otherwise - even 4-port ones. There
are not many things that haven't been added to RP, or Arduino.

geoff

On 27/09/2021 04.56, nospam wrote:
> In article <2gm72ixn1g.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor>, Carlos E. R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> I remmeber when speed standards for communication were up to 9600 baud.
>>>>>>>> Imaging having to stick to that over a RS232 25 way D-connector.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That was nothing to do with any government or regional pact decree.
>>>>>>> That was an industry-derived standard.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> not a very good one, with substantial variances in voltage, pinouts and
>>>>>> handshaking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Kept the world going for decades, with relatively few complications - in
>>>>> the professional arena at least.
>>>>
>>>> Still going on :-)
>>>
>>> no it isn't, other than for legacy devices, which area extremely rare.
>
>
>>
>> Cisco routers,
>
> some networking equipment does have a console serial port, but that's
> one of the rare exceptions. it's also legacy and not normally needed.
> the web ui or ssh is more than sufficient in nearly every case.

Depends on what you have to do on the machine. In certain circumstances,
it is the only available method.

>
>> for example. Or IoT gadgets.
>
> such as which ones?

Ask google, it said so.

>
> i've yet to see an iot device that has an rs232 port. they normally use
> wifi, bluetooth and/or usb, depending on the device.
>
>> Or the Raspberry Pi.
>
> the raspberry pi does *not* have rs-232. what are you smoking?

Complain to google :-p

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On Saturday, 25 September 2021 at 02:48:40 UTC+1, geoff wrote:
> On 25/09/2021 12:22 am, Whisky-dave wrote:
> > On Thursday, 23 September 2021 at 16:19:09 UTC+1, David Taylor wrote:
> >> On 23/09/2021 15:56, RichA wrote:
> >>> https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-58665809
> >>>
> >>
> >> Makes a lot of sense. Even Apple are USB-C now.
> >
> > Make a bit of sense but as it;s government and the EU
> > it won't make any long term sense.
> >
> > The day will come when USB-C can;t suplpy enough power to charge a phone in 5mins
> > which may well happen as batter technology changes over time.
> >
> > I remmeber when speed standards for communication were up to 9600 baud.
> > Imaging having to stick to that over a RS232 25 way D-connector.
> That was nothing to do with any government or regional pact decree.
> That was an industry-derived standard.

and the 'industry' was allowed to change it's standard.

Leave this sort of thing to a government and it'll be politically controlled
and may take a decade before things change, a bit like trade deals.
That was my point.

>
> geoff

On Sunday, 26 September 2021 at 23:10:37 UTC+1, geoff wrote:
> On 27/09/2021 3:46 am, nospam wrote:
> > In article <eL2dnYcYFZ5s4tP8...@giganews.com>, geoff
> > <ge...@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:
> >
> >>> I remmeber when speed standards for communication were up to 9600 baud.
> >>> Imaging having to stick to that over a RS232 25 way D-connector.
> >>
> >> That was nothing to do with any government or regional pact decree.
> >> That was an industry-derived standard.
> >
> > not a very good one, with substantial variances in voltage, pinouts and
> > handshaking.
> >
> Kept the world going for decades, with relatively few complications - in
> the professional arena at least.
>
> geoff
Really there was 9, 15, 25 and 37 way and a 50 way which I never got to use.
Then was it crossed or straight was DCD used , then there was busy ackw
and x-on x-off and many other pins that I've luckily mostly forgot about.
all just for 8 bit communication, of course have a standard 25 pins when you only really needed pins 2,3, & gnd
did seem a bit wasteful expense wise.
I just don't think govenments should have much say in these sort of areas.

In article <AI-dnXIl7-2Jrsz8nZ2dnUU7-VfNnZ2d@giganews.com>, geoff
<geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:

> >>> not a very good one, with substantial variances in voltage, pinouts and
> >>> handshaking.
> >>
> >> Kept the world going for decades, with relatively few complications - in
> >> the professional arena at least.
> >
> > actually, there were numerous complications.
> >
> > in addition to what's listed above above, add dce/dte, null-modem
> > cables, gender changers,
>
> No 'complications there.

that's definitely complications.

the mere existence of a null-modem cable is a design failure.

> bit rate and data/start/parity bits.
>
> Nothing to do with the *connector*.

technically true, however, that was also a significant issue in getting
devices to communicate.

keep in mind that the european commission is *also* mandating usb-pd in
addition to the usb-c connector, including for devices that don't yet
exist and even if usb-pd is not appropriate.

> > since the signaling voltage varied from +/-3 to 15v, some devices would
> > not work with other devices.
>
> Any compliant device should work with voltages within that range. Don't
> blame the standard, or the connector (!), for non-compliant devices.

they were compliant.

the problem is that there was such a wide variance that there was no
guarantee two devices could communicate.

> > there were even breakout boxes to debug it:
>
> I have one on by desk here right now. A IDS Model 60. Used more for
> making sure the signals were actually present, but also able to split
> and configure alternative scenarios.
>
> > <https://through-the-interface.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83452464869e201b7c952
> > 823d970b-pi>
> >
> > even the connector wasn't standardized. companies soon realized only a
> > few pins were needed, so they used db-9 instead of db-25, resulting in
> > adapters, or they used a custom non-standard adapter.
>
> Two different connectors (DB-25 and DB-9) for different levels and types
> of use.

plus a plethora of other connectors, with the necessary adapter cables:

<https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/6117IJUMRwL._AC_SL1500_.jpg>
<https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41hy0k+NJlL._AC_.jpg>
<https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41eGJ9W7siL._AC_.jpg>
<https://static.garmincdn.com/en/products/010-10141-00/g/cf-lg.jpg>

another problem is that db-25 was used for *other* purposes, such as a
parallel port or scsi port. db-9 was also sometimes used for non-serial
purposes.

and then there were the weird variants, such as db-13w3:
<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f0/13W3_Stecker.
jpg/800px-13W3_Stecker.jpg>

> And various adaptors likewise. For specific purposes, usually not
> industry-standard professional data-communications devices.
>
>
> > <https://www.l-com.com/Content/Images/Product/Large/DGL259FF-IBM_500x500
> > _View1.jpg>
> >
> > it was anything *but* standard.
>
> Very standard. But not one unique connector for all uses, which would be
> stupid.

the proposed usb-c mandate wants to require one unique connector
(usb-c) for all uses on many consumer devices, including cameras and
headphones.

as you say, that's stupid.

> I'd call it more 'versatile'. Only the pins required for a device needed
> be present or used. Not counting non-RS-232/EIA uses.

it's poorly defined. if everything is optional, it's not a standard.

> You also seem to have trouble differentiating between the connector and
> it's uses.

nope.

In article <QZydnZh2io3jo8z8nZ2dnUU7-SednZ2d@giganews.com>, geoff
<geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:

> It was pretty much all there was at the time.

true, and primitive.

> So got used for all sorts
> of things.

which ended up becoming a problem.

In article <QZydnZt2io1bo8z8nZ2dnUU7-ScAAAAA@giganews.com>, geoff
<geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:

> >>> it was anything *but* standard.
> >>>
> >>
> >> It was a standard, just that some failed to implement the standard
> >> correctly.
> >
> > not a very good standard since there was a substantial amount of
> > variance in how it could be implemented.
> >
>
> How many different standard DB-25 and DB-9 plugs/sockets can you describe ?

there were more than just those two, plus how it was wired varied, plus
other issues.

In article <bvmdndVVgJ9j3cz8nZ2dnUU7-afNnZ2d@giganews.com>, geoff
<geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:

> >> Or the Raspberry Pi.
> >
> > the raspberry pi does *not* have rs-232. what are you smoking?
> >
> > depending on which pi, there is usb, ethernet, wifi and/or bluetooth.
> >
> > the pi zero has *only* usb, although it does support some usb-ethernet
> > adapters without drivers.
> >
> > it's possible to use one or more pins on the gpi expansion port for
> > serial communication, but that is not an rs-232 port.
> >
>
>
> 20 seconds on google will tell you otherwise - even 4-port ones.

you don't understand the difference between having a port and adding a
port.

the claim was that raspberry pi has rs-232. it does not.

rs-232 can be *added* to a pi, as can many other things.

it is *not* a standard included port.

rs-232 can also be *added* to many other things, including laptops and
even smartphones. that doesn't mean they have rs-232 ports either.

> There
> are not many things that haven't been added to RP, or Arduino.

added to means it doesn't have it already.

In article <6pi82ix71l.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor>, Carlos E. R.
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> >>>>
> >>>> Still going on :-)
> >>>
> >>> no it isn't, other than for legacy devices, which area extremely rare.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Cisco routers,
> >
> > some networking equipment does have a console serial port, but that's
> > one of the rare exceptions. it's also legacy and not normally needed.
> > the web ui or ssh is more than sufficient in nearly every case.
>
> Depends on what you have to do on the machine. In certain circumstances,
> it is the only available method.

that scenario is *extremely* rare.

> >> for example. Or IoT gadgets.
> >
> > such as which ones?
>
> Ask google, it said so.

in other words, you made it up.

> > i've yet to see an iot device that has an rs232 port. they normally use
> > wifi, bluetooth and/or usb, depending on the device.
> >
> >> Or the Raspberry Pi.
> >
> > the raspberry pi does *not* have rs-232. what are you smoking?
>
> Complain to google :-p

in other words, you made that up too.

In article <0ecb3288-b1b7-4e48-bb65-7ec33393fbefn@googlegroups.com>,
Whisky-dave <whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:

> Really there was 9, 15, 25 and 37 way and a 50 way which I never got to
> use.
> Then was it crossed or straight was DCD used , then there was busy ackw
> and x-on x-off and many other pins that I've luckily mostly forgot about.
> all just for 8 bit communication, of course have a standard 25 pins when you
> only really needed pins 2,3, & gnd

yep. it was a huge mess.

> did seem a bit wasteful expense wise.

also true.

> I just don't think govenments should have much say in these sort of areas.

they shouldn't.

they have enough trouble trying to solve actual problems. no need to
invent ones that aren't even an issue.

let the market decide. given that iphones are among the best selling
phones in the world, it's obviously not in any way a problem.

On 27/09/2021 14.20, Whisky-dave wrote:
> On Saturday, 25 September 2021 at 02:48:40 UTC+1, geoff wrote:
>> On 25/09/2021 12:22 am, Whisky-dave wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 23 September 2021 at 16:19:09 UTC+1, David Taylor wrote:
>>>> On 23/09/2021 15:56, RichA wrote:
>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-58665809
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Makes a lot of sense. Even Apple are USB-C now.
>>>
>>> Make a bit of sense but as it;s government and the EU
>>> it won't make any long term sense.
>>>
>>> The day will come when USB-C can;t suplpy enough power to charge a phone in 5mins
>>> which may well happen as batter technology changes over time.
>>>
>>> I remmeber when speed standards for communication were up to 9600 baud.
>>> Imaging having to stick to that over a RS232 25 way D-connector.
>> That was nothing to do with any government or regional pact decree.
>> That was an industry-derived standard.
>
> and the 'industry' was allowed to change it's standard.
>
> Leave this sort of thing to a government and it'll be politically controlled
> and may take a decade before things change, a bit like trade deals.
> That was my point.

GSM came about from Governments joining, deciding and pushing it (in the
EU), and it has been very successful, taking over the world mobile phone
systems. Previous to the USA changing to it, providers used incompatible
systems.

Changing and improving it has been no problem.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On Sep 27, 2021, Carlos E. R. wrote
(in article <4eq82ixd1o.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor>):

> On 27/09/2021 14.20, Whisky-dave wrote:
> > On Saturday, 25 September 2021 at 02:48:40 UTC+1, geoff wrote:
> > > On 25/09/2021 12:22 am, Whisky-dave wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, 23 September 2021 at 16:19:09 UTC+1, David Taylor wrote:
> > > > > On 23/09/2021 15:56, RichA wrote:
> > > > > > https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-58665809
> > > > >
> > > > > Makes a lot of sense. Even Apple are USB-C now.
> > > >
> > > > Make a bit of sense but as it;s government and the EU
> > > > it won't make any long term sense.
> > > >
> > > > The day will come when USB-C can;t suplpy enough power to charge a phone
> > > > in 5mins
> > > > which may well happen as batter technology changes over time.
> > > >
> > > > I remmeber when speed standards for communication were up to 9600 baud.
> > > > Imaging having to stick to that over a RS232 25 way D-connector.
> > > That was nothing to do with any government or regional pact decree.
> > > That was an industry-derived standard.
> >
> > and the 'industry' was allowed to change it's standard.
> >
> > Leave this sort of thing to a government and it'll be politically controlled
> > and may take a decade before things change, a bit like trade deals.
> > That was my point.
>
> GSM came about from Governments joining, deciding and pushing it (in the
> EU), and it has been very successful, taking over the world mobile phone
> systems. Previous to the USA changing to it, providers used incompatible
> systems.
>
> Changing and improving it has been no problem.

Do you know what year it is?

On 2021-09-26 23:56, geoff wrote:

>
>
> 20 seconds on google will tell you otherwise - even 4-port ones.  There
> are not many things that haven't been added to RP, or Arduino.

You can add dozens of interfaces to RP or Arduino, but they don't come
"with" them. Further, the serial ports on the RP and Arduino are
different voltages (from each other) and neither is directly RS-232
compliant.

--
"...there are many humorous things in this world; among them the white
man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages."
-Samuel Clemens

On 2021-09-27 06:25, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 27/09/2021 04.56, nospam wrote:

>> the raspberry pi does *not* have rs-232. what are you smoking?
>
> Complain to google :-p

Learn the difference between what you can add to a pi and what it has
out of the box.

The pi does have serial data level ports at 0 to 3.3V. But that is not,
at all, RS-232. A RS-232 receiver might read from the Pi. But sending
RS-232 from a device directly to the UART input on the Pi could result
in damage to the Pi.

--
"...there are many humorous things in this world; among them the white
man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages."
-Samuel Clemens

In article <79p4J.17544$IO1.7252@fx19.iad>, Alan Browne
<bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:

> >
> > 20 seconds on google will tell you otherwise - even 4-port ones.  There
> > are not many things that haven't been added to RP, or Arduino.
>
> You can add dozens of interfaces to RP or Arduino, but they don't come
> "with" them. Further, the serial ports on the RP and Arduino are
> different voltages (from each other) and neither is directly RS-232
> compliant.

exactly.