--- Ben Harris <bjh21@NetBSD.org> wrote: > On Fri, 6 Feb 2004, Gary
Thorpe wrote:
> 
> >  --- Ben Harris <bjh21@NetBSD.org> wrote:
> > > This is a trivial issue, but it'll irritate me forever if I don't
> It's
> > > not so much the inaccuracy that bothers me as the fact that
> someone
> > > was clearly trying to be clever in naming the device and _got it
> > > wrong_.
> >
> > What bother me is that the person who "tried to be clever" asked
> this
> > list what an appropriate name would be and got back 'atppc'.
> 
> When I wrote "clearly", I should really have written "apparently". 
> The
> actual mechanism by which the name was reached isn't really relevant;
> it's
> the _impression_ that the name gives (and largely the impression it
> gives
> to me) that I care about.

The impression is that the device is the same parallel port device
found in all AT-compatible computers (as well as others). What
impression did you get?

> 
> > I think pcppc was suggested but the overall response was that atppc
> was
> > better for whatever reason.
> 
> Google can't find any reference to "pcppc" in a relevant context, but
> this
> probably means nothing.
> 
> -- 
> Ben Harris                                                  
> <bjh21@NetBSD.org>
> Portmaster, NetBSD/acorn26          
<URL:http://www.NetBSD.org/Ports/acorn26/>