[SunRescue] Hardware reference re-structuring ideas.

[Gregory Leblanc]

Chris Petersen wrote:
>
[...]
> > > I definetely think there needs to be a seperate section as there is now for
> > > addressing the workstations and servers as a "type" of hardware, as opposed
> > > to lumping the whole thing together.  Say, a section with the basics on the
> > > lineup by architecture, followed by sections in detail on each style of
> > > machine, cross-linked to appendices based on host-bus architecture.
> >
> > So you're saying don't lump servers and workstations together, right?
> > Just want to make sure I can still read.
> 
> Whoops, now that I reread that, I'm confused myself...
> 
> What I meant was lump all the actual machines together, just don't lump that
> content together with ALL of Sun's hardware (namely I/O cards, keyboards,
> etc...).  Which is an opinion probably motivated by my misreading your
> original post.

So don't put the machines in the all of the interface boards and stuff? 
Separate out the boards that do SCSI or Video from the boards that hold
the processor.  The only qualm that I might have about doing this for
everything is with VME stuff.  Somebody might not be able to tell that
their VME board is a CPU board, or a serial board, or a network board. 
But perhaps I could just put something in there to point them to the
correct section.  For non-vme boards, this makes very good sense.

> 
> However, it would be a great idea to note where things were essentially a
> server versus essentially a workstation, although that line kind of blurs
> with the older Sun equipment.  Sun themselves haven't been too good about
> that type of delineation until the Ultra series came out.

True enough.  As a friend said to me years ago as we were just "junior
geeks", the difference between a SPARCStation and a SPARCServer is that
the server doesn't have a frame buffer.

> 
> [snip!]
> 
> > > D. System Options, Processors, etc. by Bus (or in the case of non-bus specific,
> > >    by function)
> > >           1. MultiBUS
                    i.   SCSI
                    ii.  Video
                    iii. Network
                    ...
> > >           2. VME
                    i.   SCSI
                    ii.  Video
                    iii. Network
                    ...
> > >           3. Sbus
                    i.   SCSI
                    ii.  Video
                    iii. Network
                    ...
> > >           x. ...
> > >           x. Keyboards & Mice
> >
> > I'm thinking that it would be worth breaking down the individual bus
> > sections into categories for each type of card (lump SCSI cards
> > together, etc).
> >
> 
> Hmm, so perhaps breaking things down by function within the bus category?
> Probably worthwhile.  At the very least, a nice cross-reference index would
> be good (i.e. something listing all the SCSI cards, regardless of bus?).

Sort of like how I just edited the above.  That should make looking up
some board MUCH faster than it is now, since I generally have to do a
search of the board number, and find something that sounds similar with
a similar number.

> 
> [snip!]
> 
> >
> > >
> > > It would be nice to take advantage of HTML for this, but whatever the end
> > > result is it should also be conveniently be usable in pure text format.  By
> > > that, I mean the links should not merely be hyperlinks on particular words
> > > or references as much as there should be some sort of orderly reference
> > > method that works both ways (not footnotes, but something that indicates
> > > both visually and via hyperlink where you can get more information on the
> > > subject).
> >
> > This document WILL be written in DocBook SGML, for portability, and
> > maintainabliity.  I know for sure that I can create HTML, PS, plain
> > text, and a couple of other formats from this, so it seems like the best
> > solution for this problem.  DocBook also allows you to automagically
> > create indexes and Tables of Contents.  Very cool stuff...
> >
> 
> Hmm, not familiar with DocBook, but SGML sounds good to me.  Will it do any
> sort of Palm format?  Would love to load my new PalmPilot up with a copy of
> the reference for rescue trips...

I'd imagine that you can do that, but I'm not familiar with what formats
are best for sending data to a Palm (although I have one myself).

> 
> And if it generates indices at all well, it should be trivial to generate
> new variations of an index as I suggested.  I always like having multiple
> ways of cross-referencing stuff.  Too much database work, I guess...

I suspect that it's not that hard, although I may have to talk to some
people who know more about it than I do.  
> 
> > >
> > > Oh, and if you want a good example of how not to do it, take a look at the
> > > Sun FE sometime, if you have access.  It seems like I have to bounce all
> > > over the place in it to find what I'm after.
> >
> > You mean the Field Engineers Handbook?  I've got one that I use as
> > reference, but the oldest machines in it are I think Sun4m.  The content
> > that I can put in there is a TINY bit about the SS20, and the info in
> > the version that I downloaded from Mr. Bills page.  This means that I'm
> > relying on you guys to help me flesh out the newer data.
> >
> 
> Yep, that's what I referred to.  The layout used by Sun in the FEH is hard
> to get used to at first.  I had expected to go to one page on the SS10, only
> to find out that there's a half a dozen sections to look at depending on
> what you want to know.  And IMHO their organization just didn't make sense.
> I do have access to an older electronic version of the Sun FEH, so I've got
> most of the SPARC era data, should we need to verify facts.

Yeah, not terribly fond of that layout myself.  It might be ok that way
if you could hyperlink, but for paper (which I have) and plain text,
it's NOT a good layout.  While we're on the topic (and so that Mr Bill
doesn't think I'm nuts) does anybody out there know who I should contact
about the copyright on the FEH, so that I might be able to include some
content in this document, without fear of litigation?  

> 
> > >
> > > And if you need any help in this endeavor, Greg, give me a holler.  Me and a
> > > couple of friends would be more than happy to help somehow, even if it's
> > > just nailing down an organizational method.
> >
> > I'll try to do most of my brainstorming on-list, to make sure I don't do
> > anything really stupid, and what we get the best document possible.
> > Thanks again, and I hope to hear more from the rest of you,
> >       Greg
> >
> 
> Not a problem.  Keep us posted, and once an organization scheme is hammered
> out, you might consider posting that scheme and letting people offer to
> write sections for you.  Might make things a little easier, you play editor
> and farm out some of the writing :)  Most of us here have had to use
> Birdsall's original reference for something along the way, and I'd love to
> help contribute to a successor/enhancement.

I can't imagine that there is anybody here who hasn't used it at least a
little.  I think it's a really good place for info on the older suns. 
Perhaps I'll do that, I'll start hammering out the outline as soon as I
finish clicking send here.  Thanks again,
	Greg