Talk:Futurebus

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The original in the late 1970s, VMEbus was faster than the parts plugged into it.
This can't be correct, or? Form this site (VMEbus) it says that VMEbus was first introduced in 1981. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.175.215.253 (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they were referring to VERSABUS, from which VMEbus was derived. Guy Harris (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't be sure, but the timelines are all messed up and there are lots of mistakes in the logical ordering of text that seem to indicate either intentional shuffling or deletion, and others that seem to be typo related. The item that makes me really suspect something is rotten in Denmark is the "today, a decade later". The "later" part seemingly refers to the date FutureBus was standardized, which was some time in 1987... this places the date of authorship of this information in 1997, which some might remember is before Wikipedia actually existed. This and the the lack of references, along with weirdly detailed and unexplained asides like the IEEE standard number for trapezoidal transceivers are a good indication of copying from some old web page or textbook with a bunch of shuffling to try to keep it from being spotted. The section is so incoherent it could probably be deleted without losing any value (although if any of it could be sourced the whole bit about "profiles" causing everything to be incompatible, whatever "everything" was since the section also says FutureBus saw very little use, could be a nice comparison with modern USB where literally nothing ever works at full speed because of monumentally stupid design and 27 mutually incompatible ways of negotiating the same connection speed).

If it was copied without being reordered, whoever wrote it seems to have been dying of a combined quaalude and methadone overdose based on how rapidly they lose track of what is currently being discussed even within the same sentence. They were possibly living on a non-linear timeline as well. The copyright might not be an issue as I doubt they survived (unless they were just born and write the section 20 years from now when they're living years ago), but it still looks bad and something should probably be written that's clear and concise. Maybe the whole section only needs to be around 1-2 paragraphs since the rest is sort of like trivia about the first day at the manufacturing plant for a brand of breakfast cereal whose production was cancelled before the factory was built? You know, the kind of trivia that's so unimportant the only place on wikipedia it would manage to stay around would be a terrible article about some comic book character's imaginary backstory that only uses comic books as references but for some reason is still allowed to stay instead of being pushed onto fandom like every other moronic fringe topic with horribly written articles. A Shortfall Of Gravitas (talk) 08:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]