Talk:Dongle

Unclear definition

The first three paragraphs do not clearly explain what a "dongle" is: "enables additional functions such as copy protection, audio, video, games, data, or other services that are only available when it is attached" is confusing, because it does not explain what the "additional" functions are (i.e., not only are the presumed additional functions vague (i.e., as opposed to what lack of functionality? why would someone want this?), but it could be misconstrued as crippling a device without it, which could, very well, be the case, but, in reality, isn't, per se). Furthermore, all three paragraphs repeat the same vague definition without further explanation. In other words, the first three paragraphs should be combined, simplified, and clarified. Skaizun (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you. This article is useless, for all practical purposes. ---P123ct1 (talk) 08:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Dongle humor

There is a British comedy show, not unlike the old, BBC, "Monty Python" series, which uses "dongle" in a humorous sketch. I have no idea whether it is appropriate to add a link to the video (http://biertijd.com/mediaplayer/?itemid=24882) much less how to do so. If someone wants to spearhead the edit, feel free to do so. Skaizun (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Description

I knew that a dongle was a device and I came here to find out what it did. I am no clearer after reading this than I was before. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

That depends on what it is. The description A dongle is a small piece of hardware that attaches is deliberately general because different dongles do different things. A similar problem exists in Vehicle; someone who did not know the term might asks whether it went on the ground, in air or in water, but the only possible answer is that it depends on which vehicle you are asking about. A Software protection dongle provides identifying information while a dongle for, e.g., a communications adapter, does not. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It is perfectly reasonable to expect an explanation of what "it" does. Your paragraph is completely irrelevant to the basic question: what exactly does a dongle do. If the answer is "deliberately general" as you say, you cannot stop there. If there are different kinds and they are not covered here but in some other article as you suggest, there should be a clearly indicated link to it. I cannot believe you wrote that. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

You're missing the point. A dongle is a device that hangs out of the system, regardless of what it does. The article already has links for specific types of dongles. There is nothing wrong with adding links for additional types of dongles, but the term is by its nature open ended and a comprehensive list is impossible.

Perhaps an analogy would help; would you expect Expansion card to explain what an expansion card does instead of defining it and giving examples? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Name

What does it mean? Where does it come from? Brutannica (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The only explanation I've ever heard (Named after a guy named Chuck Dongle) is almost certainly toro merde. I expect it just appeared fully formed as Metasyntactic variable for something that had no actual name to begin with. "Just shove that, um, dongle thingy into the back." And history was formed. I kind of remember that early on some people used the term "dangle", but that died out. - Richfife (talk) 15:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

: Your etymology interests me strangely. I encountered the word and the object, in the days of Commodore 64s. A dongle, poked into a port, was required to enable a certain Commodore software package function, my friend explained, but he didn't know the word's derivation, either. I rather liked it; like the word 'woggle', the term was both useful and amusing, even affectionate. Few things in the digital world are loveable. FWIW, we surmised that the dongle contained merely a small resistor network whose impedance caused a measurable voltage drop, set some semiconductor functioning, or else sulking, and allowed number-crunching matters to proceed. 121.44.147.79 (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Please take a look at "Origin of device and name" below. I hope this helps.

Trusley Mike (talk) 09:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Some major fixing up

I've just been making some general edits and adding a bit to try to improve this article. I moved a few things around, tried not to remove anything, and added a couple of examples. If you compare the diffs from before to my last edit you'll see what I did in one place. A few more photos could really help a lot! Huw Powell (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

My first encounter with "dongle" was in the late 1980s. It referred to a device that allowed Macintosh computers to be connected to an Appletalk network via four-conductor telephone cable. You used one at each networked machine. Everyone snickered at the term, so I assumed (and still believe) that it is a combination of "dong" and "dangle." It now refers to any small piece of hardware that plugs into a computing device to extend its capabilities. For example, http://www.computerworld.com/article/2864457/iphone-dongle-sends-100mb-to-other-ios-devices-in-seconds.html?phint=newt%3Dcomputerworld_macintosh&phint=idg_eid%3D4e472f94d410421cd2350c447c714617#tk.CTWNLE_nlt_mac_2015-01-06. Snorklehead (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, come ON

This article has expanded the meaning of the term beyond all rationality. Cassette adapters? Personal FM transmitters? Seriously? Jeh (talk) 13:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. If a USB storage stick is a "USB dongle" then an external hard drive should be an "eSATA dongle". This article seems to put anything that connects to a port under the dongle umbrella. --Super j dynamite (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Article needs some major updating/rewriting.

It states "in computing, the term is primarily associated with hardware providing a copy protection mechanism for proprietary software, in which the dongle must be attached to the system on which the software is installed in order for it to function". While this was indeed the origin of the term, I doubt many people would associate the term primarily with a type of copy protection device. In modern usage, the term tends to reform to devices that plug into computer through a port (such USB, Lightning, or Thunderbolt), and provides additional functions to the computer such wireless & wired networking or port conversion (such lightning to headphone jack, display port to HDMI, USB to 9-pin RS-232 serial port, etc.). There may still be copy protection dongles being used today but that is not what most people these day would associate the term with. The term is not used for external devices like portable hard drives or other similarly larger hardware devices. It is used for SD card readers and possibly USB flash stick/thumb drives (we should verify that). Let's clear up just what constitutes a computer/smartphone/tablet dongle and what doesn't. --2600:1700:56A0:4680:F537:E917:3525:50A0 (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree it needs tidying up and the definition could be improved - I have made a suggestion below and I welcome your comments.

Definition of "dongle"

"Dongle is a generic term for small external devices designed to plug directly into a port on a computer, smart TV or other intelligent device, to provide additional functionality."

In the notes below "computer" is used to cover intelligent devices such as computers, smart TVs, etc. - anything to which the dongle adds additional functionality.

Notes:

• "generic" covers a family of devices with certain attributes, not a specific device. There is no single thing called a "dongle" and anyone making a device meeting this definition is free to call their device a dongle if they wish.
• "small" is a relative term but rules out "large" and even "medium sized".
• "external" rules out things inside the computer such as the power supply, motherboard, graphics card, microphones, cameras etc.
• "plug" shows that it can be plugged in and removed, it is not a permanent part of the computer.
• "directly" rules out devices connected via a cable such as printers, external hard drives, external cameras etc.
• "port" can be a standard connection: serial, parallel, IEEE etc, or a proprietary one: user port, Thunderbolt etc.
• "added functionality" requires expansion by example - see below.

Examples of dongles:

• Wireless adapter for things such as wireless mice and keyboards.
• Wifi adapter to connect to a router or other wifi devices.
• Bluetooth adapter to connect to speakers or other Bluetooth compatible devices.
• Encryption key to be used by software or firmware when encrypting or decrypting files, messages, signals, etc.
• Token to provide an id to enable access to the computer, files, services, etc.
• Software protection device to prevent software piracy.
• Adapter for streaming audio or video.
• Storage device such as a "USB stick" - though these are rarely referred to as dongles.

Trusley Mike (talk)

What's your source? - MrOllie (talk) 13:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Me. All definitions are made up by someone so I made up one and invited comments. Trusley Mike (talk) 09:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I thought you told me early on that the purpose of a "Talk" page was to discuss the best ways to improve an article? So, I have made a suggestion (above) and I welcome other users with knowledge in the field making positive comments and suggestions. Is there any other place where those who wish to improve articles can exchange ideas?

The book cited in the article does not itself cite the source of the definition they use - they made it up and it is weak - as other contributors to this talk page have made clear. So, I attempted to improve it based on 40+ years of working with dongles.

It appears to be OK to make things up - as long as whatever you have made up appears outside Wikipedia.

Reading between the lines of your edits and your uncritical adherence to "the rules" (yes, I have read all the pages you have referred me to - most I agree with, some I am deeply critical of), Wikipedia is in danger of becoming a mere unqualified and uncritical regurgitator of material cited elsewhere. One of the good things about the old fashioned encyclopedias was that they contained original material as well as references to other sources. Has Wikipedia abandoned this?

BTW: I have been looking through the software protection page that you edited earlier today (i.e. that you removed all my material from and nothing else) and it is riddled with unsubstantiated statements and claims - some of the citations are inaccurate. Is it OK if I take everything out that doesn't have a current and accurate citation?

Why do I keep asking you for permission to do things? Are you in some sort of privileged position? Do you have a role in Wikipedia other than being someone like me who tries to expand human knowledge?

I think the words "common sense", "reasonable" and "discretion" should come into play here.

Trusley Mike (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia has specifically abandoned that, and yes, Wikipedia is supposed to be a regurgitator of material cited from elsewhere. See the policy on 'no original research', which is one of Wikipedia's main policies. - MrOllie (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Origin of device and name

The "History" of this page will show that I have tried to add details of when, where and by whom dongles were invented and named. Since I was one of those present at the time (in Coventry, in 1978) along with Peter Dowson and Graham Heggie, it appears I have a conflict of interest because I would be writing about me.

The Wordcraft word processor, and Typecraft typesetting software, for which dongles were invented, both ceased to be sold in the early 1990s. We ceased making dongles, for ourselves and other companies, at the same time so I no longer have any financial or business interest in dongles.

I have modified my edits to include third party references about the software and dongles but I have been placed in the position of not being able to provide full details of why dongles were invented, what they consisted of (hardware and software), how they were named ("dangle" became "dongle" is correct) and how they evolved. The reason being that the three people involved (still around!) are assumed to have a conflict of interest.

This puts me in the same position of Edmund Hillary or Tensing Norgay - both of whom have a conflict of interest in claiming that they were first to reach the summit of Everest. There were only two of them, no-one else was there and we only have their word for it. Everything else is post hoc - so what do we believe?

I have photos of the dongles we produced, I have photos of the software with the dongles (I have placed only one photo in the article but I could add more if permitted), I have the software User Guides indicating how the dongles are to be used (I wrote and typeset the Guides!) and, best of all, I have the physical dongles in my possession - including the very first one manufactured to go on the cassette port of a Commodore PET.

I am at a loss as to what more I can do to provide background on the origin and naming of dongles. Anyone interested in more details is welcome to contact me personally by email: mlake at btconnect.com.

Note: the references under "Etymology" are speculation not fact. Should "urban myths" have a place in a definition? No link is provided to the alleged advertisement in Byte magazine - though, in all fairness, I do recall seeing it at the time and laughing out loud. In current parlance is all this not "fake news"?

The truth, should anyone be interested, is that Graham Heggie's wire-wrap Veroboard containing the 74LS165 8 bit shift register plugged into the cassette port of a Commodore PET was left dangling while Pete Dowson tested his obfuscated 6502 assembler code to read the value clocked out of the shift register. Two minutes of amusing word play over a cup of tea turned "dangle" into "dongle" - not that we thought it was a big thing at the time - we were primarily concerned with ensuring we made a return on our expensive software development time without anyone ripping us off!

Trusley Mike (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I reviewed your references, and I couldn't find anything in them that indicated that this was the *first* use of dongles, which is the important bit. Can you point out the specific page numbers and/or text that you believe supports that? - MrOllie (talk) 10:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Please let me know who you are, if you are paid by Wikipedia and how the Wikipedia appeals procedure operates.

Trusley Mike (talk) 09:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

My understanding has always been that "first" was first until someone came up with something earlier. Hillary and Norgay claimed "first" ascent of Everest and, so far, no one has claimed earlier - though Mallory is a contender but he died before having a chance to make the claim. Darwin claimed "first" for evolution by natural selection even though Wallace probably got there (unpublished) before him.

I know of no-one else claiming either the use of a dongle (or other plug-in software protection device), or the neologism, prior to our invention in 1978. Are you aware of anything earlier? I have changed the wording to "claimed".

Why are you willing to accept the totally speculative Etymology? Anyone can publish hearsay but that does not make it fact - unless backed up by affidavits from those present at the time.

I am really pleased that this discussion is open and public - it is historically interesting.

Please let me know who you are, if you are paid by Wikipedia and how the Wikipedia appeals procedure operates.

Trusley Mike (talk) 09:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

We need a source that meets our guidelines that says 'first,' 'invented by' or something to that effect. An acceptable source would be a newspaper article, a book on the history of computing, etc. The Etymology section you're complaining about cites a IEEE source and a piece from the Atlantic, which are both good sources. On Wikipedia we follow what the sources say, even if we might find it to be 'speculative', we don't substitute our personal opinions for the sources. You can read about Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, but you're going to be told much the same as I'm telling you - we need good sources. - MrOllie (talk) 09:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Please let me know who you are, if you are paid by Wikipedia and how the Wikipedia appeals procedure operates.

Trusley Mike (talk) 09:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I linked you to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution above. - MrOllie (talk) 09:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Please let me know who you are and if you are paid by Wikipedia.

Trusley Mike (talk) 10:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I decline to share any personal information with you. - MrOllie (talk) 10:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Interesting - not even if you work for Wikipedia or not? You already have my details.

I don't wish to get up-tight but I am proud of the things I and my colleagues have invented over the years - as I am sure you are proud of the things you have created.

Anyway, I have added the Typecraft User Guide to the page along with images of dongles and pages showing how they were used.

Trusley Mike (talk) 11:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Your sources don't actually support the content you're adding. Please stop edit warring. - MrOllie (talk) 09:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I am confused. At your specific request I have provided the following evidence:

1) The Typecraft Operation Manual shows the use of the word 'dongle' in 1982. This is "the earliest known documented use" - even though I know (but don't mention, and you don't accept) that we invented the dongle in 1978. At the moment I don't have a manual for the 1978 software - but I will keep looking - it's amazing what is kept by people round the world.

NOTE: if anyone reading this has any material relating to Wordcraft/Typecraft and associated dongles I would be grateful if you would contact me at mlake at btconnect.com. Better still, please post photos or links in the Dongles article we are discussing here.

2) The Wordcraft User Guide shows the use of the word 'dongle'.

3) Both of the above show physical dongles.

4) The link to the Commodore Software list shows the existence of the Wordcraft word processor.

5) The link to the PrintWeek article shows the existence of the Typecraft typesetting software.

6) The link to the book about Wordcraft provides additional proof of existence.

7) The link to the third party web site shows the existence and distribution of Wordcraft by Dataview.

8) The link to the ICPUG history describes the meeting in 1978 in Bedfordshire when Peter Dowson talked about the word processor he was developing.

9) The silk screen printing on the dongles shows the link between Peter Dowson ("P L Dowson") and the Wordcraft product name.

I think this evidence would stand up in court - what more do you want?

You are trolling my edits and hiding behind a user name.

Please stop preventing people finding out how dongles came into existence.

Please stop reverting my edits. If you are unhappy with my edits you are free to use the Wikipedia disputes procedure you referred me to.

Trusley Mike (talk) 12:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Just because a mention is the earliest you can find, that doesn't make it the 'earliest known'. We need a secondary source (not a primary source, which is what you're adding) which actually says the words 'earliest known' to claim that. No amount of primary sourcing can fix this essential flaw. Also, you have a massive conflict of interest here and should not be editing this article directly. It is natural to be proud of your life's accomplishments, but that pride is preventing you from evaluating these sources and Wikipedia's policies in a neutral, objective way. - MrOllie (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll also add that there is a known patent for a Dongle (which we also can't use here, as patents are primary sources as well) that dates to 1977, filed by Dallas Semiconductor. I suspect that this is rather like the steam engine - many people probably came up with this independently around the same time period once all the required technological components came along. - MrOllie (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for a much more positive tone of response.

I am happy to leave the "earliest known" out if that helps.

Your mention of a 1977 patent interests me - can you provide a link for me to have a look at? I am pretty certain it won't use the "dongle" word though.

I don't understand the logic of not using patents as a source - they are public documents. We didn't apply for a patent for our device because:

1) It was so simple - we used a 74LS165 serial shift register for the purpose for which it was invented - serial shifting!

2) Patents become expensive over time - as I know from experience! Even if you get one it can be challenged - and it costs a fortune to defend one.

3) It never occurred to us at the time.

4) We just wanted to shift software. We had copyright on our software and that brought in the pennies. Those who breached our copyright lost!

It is much harder to get patents in the UK than the US - in the US you can patent an idea, not so here. Again, experience tells me that it is much easier to win a challenge against a US patent than here - though lawyers make money either side of the pond!

If all my edits were made by third parties not associated with me would that overcome your concern about conflict of interest?

There are still tens of thousands of people alive who used Wordcraft and Typecraft and who know about our invention and naming of dongles - I am sure some of them would be willing to chip in.

Trusley Mike (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to post twice.

I am aware of earlier internal protection for software code - what I suppose would be better called firmware protection used for all sorts of devices including early calculators. This employs both hardware techniques (circuits dedicated to decrypting code before it is executed) and software techniques (self-modifying code such as we used when reading dongles). Self-modifying code exists in executable form only for so long as it is required - a millisecond at the most when reading an external dongle. The key is to obfuscate the code that does the self-modifying. In both cases the code becomes vulnerable to reverse engineering as soon as it is in executable form.

Internal protection would not meet the definition of an external dongle - when we agree on what such a definition is!

Trusley Mike (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Re 'If all my edits were made by third parties not associated with me would that overcome your concern about conflict of interest?' - No. Your edits aren't properly sourced, as I have explained a couple of times above. Your conflict of interest is what is preventing you from seeing this, but it will be true even if you were to inappropriately gather others to make edits on your behalf. - MrOllie (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I put up a hypothetical question. A question implies neither intent nor action.

Trusley Mike (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Today I added two simple sentences, both backed up by photographs of physical objects.

thumb|Typecraft manual showing use of a dongle in 1982.

thumb|Dongles used to protect the Wordcraft word processing software

Can you please provide specific reasons for the removal of the text and the photos. Are you claiming that the text is untrue and the photos are faked?

There are multiple statements in the article backed up by no citations, photographs or anything else - why are they still there?

I apologise if I have done something to annoy you but I really don't understand your motive for all this.

Trusley Mike (talk) 11:16, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

See WP:UNDUE. As I keep explaining to you, secondary sources are required. - MrOllie (talk) 11:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Can't edit page.

I can't seem to edit this page.

I wish to add citations to these definitions:

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a dongle as "a small device that plugs into a computer and serves as an adapter or as a security measure to enable the use of certain software."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dongle

The Oxford English Dictionary defines a dongle as "a small device able to be connected to and used with a computer, especially to allow access to wireless broadband or use of protected software."

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/dongle

Jones and Watson has two definitions of dongle: page 11 - "a copy protection device supplied with software that plugs into a computer port, usually the parallel or USB port on a PC" and page 335 - "a small device that plugs into a computer port that contains types of information similar to information on a smart card that is used for authorizing access to specific items of hardware or software."

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=P0Hwx4F8Q7cC&pg=PA335&dq=A+dongle+is+a+small+piece+of+hardware+that+connects+to+another+device+to+provide+it+with+additional+functionality&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=A%20dongle%20is%20a%20small%20piece%20of%20hardware%20that%20connects%20to%20another%20device%20to%20provide%20it%20with%20additional%20functionality&f=false

Later note: I see the page has been protected - which is fine. I would still like to know if the above citations are OK to post when the time comes.

Trusley Mike (talk) 11:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)