On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 18:49:43 +0200 Rodolfo Zitellini <r...@xhero.org> wrote:
> Hi! > I’ve been working on a new LocalTalk interface driver for the last couple > months, do you think it would be possible to at least postpone the removal of > LT a bit? > > It is a driver for an open source device called TashTalk > (https://github.com/lampmerchant/tashtalk), which runs on a PIC micro that > does all the LT interfacing, and communicates back via serial to the host > system. My driver is relatively simple and works very well with netatalk 2.2 > (which is still maintained and still has support for AppleTalk). The driver > is basically complete and trsted and I was preparing to submit a patch. > > Still having LocalTalk in my view has many advantages for us enthusiasts that > still want to bridge old machines to the current world without modifications, > for example for printing on modern printers, netbooting, sharing files and > even tcp/ip. All this basically works out of the box via the driver, Linux > and available userspace tools (netatalk, macipgw). > > The old ISA cards supported by COPS were basically unobtanium even 20 years > ago, but the solution of using a PIC and a serial port is very robust and > much more furure-proof. We also already have a device that can interface a > modern machine directly via USB to LocalTalk. > > The development of the TashTalk has been also extensively discussed on thr > 68KMLA forum > (https://68kmla.org/bb/index.php?threads/modtashtalk-lt0-driver-for-linux.45031/) > > I hope the decision to remove LocalTalk can be reconsidered at least for the > time being so there is a chance to submit a new, modern device making use of > this stack. > > Many Thanks, > Rodolfo Zitellini Does it really need it to be a kernel protocol stack? What about doing it in userspace or with BPF?
