My only concern is that pipe c is shown as having two different shapes: straight and slightly curved.
Based on the fact that the design requires that a and b be different, there would undoubtedly be the same situation for the four slightly curved c pipes. That is, there would need to be two “c2” pipes and two “c3” pipes in the set rather than just four more of the same c pipe.
That makes me think the diagram at the bottom was made before a decision to cut costs and/or simplify. Four regular c pipes will undoubtedly be cheaper and logistically simpler to manage for both shipping and user construction than having those two extra pipe types.
It was, of course, relabelled to match the supplied parts, but the hints of the original design still remain.
Wow you are too hardcore Linux user for me to grasp what you mean. I suppose pipe is the new sound system though. But why the need for so many?
I wasn’t even aware that level of abstraction was possible when talking about Linux, not even Arch.
Pipewire? It’s very new to me and can’t say I know much about it, not that I knew much about its predecessors either.
...
(But putting the silliness hat on…)
The pipes in the diagram are obviouslynamed pipes, but they’re not Linux pipes. There seems to be not only multiple types (which is disturbingly Microsoft), but often multiple by the same name (which would confuse most sane OSes, if not the insane ones too.)
It’s almost like they’re instances of a subroutine object all running in parallel…
Makes sense to me.
My only concern is that pipe c is shown as having two different shapes: straight and slightly curved.
Based on the fact that the design requires that a and b be different, there would undoubtedly be the same situation for the four slightly curved c pipes. That is, there would need to be two “c2” pipes and two “c3” pipes in the set rather than just four more of the same c pipe.
That makes me think the diagram at the bottom was made before a decision to cut costs and/or simplify. Four regular c pipes will undoubtedly be cheaper and logistically simpler to manage for both shipping and user construction than having those two extra pipe types.
It was, of course, relabelled to match the supplied parts, but the hints of the original design still remain.
Wow you are too hardcore Linux user for me to grasp what you mean. I suppose pipe is the new sound system though. But why the need for so many?
I wasn’t even aware that level of abstraction was possible when talking about Linux, not even Arch.
Pipewire? It’s very new to me and can’t say I know much about it, not that I knew much about its predecessors either.
...
(But putting the silliness hat on…)
The pipes in the diagram are obviously named pipes, but they’re not Linux pipes. There seems to be not only multiple types (which is disturbingly Microsoft), but often multiple by the same name (which would confuse most sane OSes, if not the insane ones too.)
It’s almost like they’re instances of a subroutine object all running in parallel…