Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!stl!robobar!ronald From: ronald@robobar.co.uk (Ronald S H Khoo) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems Subject: Re: comp.dcom.modems lexicon Message-ID: <1991Mar7.115717.17186@robobar.co.uk> Date: 7 Mar 91 11:57:17 GMT References: <1991Mar5.225546.6672@panix.uucp> <19552@cbmvax.commodore.com> <3832.27d4dcf9@hayes.uucp> Organization: Robobar Ltd., Perivale, Middx., ENGLAND. Lines: 39 tnixon@hayes.uucp writes: > "Full duplex" never has been an official term, so we > couldn't abandon it, but we avoid using it. > Personally, I don't see any real harm in saying "full duplex" when > you mean "duplex", I'm having a little bit of difficulty with this whole thread. The usage I'm used to is: simplex: A can talk to B but B cannot talk to A half-duplex: A can talk to B and B can talk to A (but not at the same time) full-duplex: A can talk to B and B can talk to A (at the same time) and all three terms are necessary, because the three cases are all different. Are you saying that CCITT considers it clearer to say "duplex" where I say "full-duplex" ? I would consider that less clear. Maybe it's just my mind becoming fixed in a heirarchical manner after years of bashing Unix, but to my mind, I'd actually want a fourth different meaning to plain "duplex", viz: | | +--------+-------+ | | simplex duplex | | +--------+-------+ | | half full If you equate full duplex with just plain duplex, then how do you say duplex without specifying whether it's full or half? -- Ronald Khoo +44 81 991 1142 (O) +44 71 229 7741 (H)