On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 12:42:50PM -0500, Kurt J. Lidl wrote: > On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 04:16:13PM +0100, Bernd Walter wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 09:30:43AM +0100, Christoph P. Kukulies wrote: > > > Just a question. Maybe it isn't true but to me it seems there > > > is still this duality between ttyd and cuad serial devices. > > > > > > Why is that? I'm just asking because someone I was talking with > > > about modems an comm programs was 'criticising' this fact > > > in FreeBSD "while other systems long have abandoned this dualism"? > > > > Because modems are still used for dial-in and dial-out. > > tty handing out to getty and cua to the dial out process. > > Moreover this handling was recently added for usb serials under > > -current. > > If other systems loose features - well it's their problem. > > That's a very limited way of looking at the functionality. If you > want to support the functions of both dialin and dialout on one > serial port, there doesn't need to be more than one kernel device. > Just because support for this got hacked into 4.2BSD in a gross > manner doesn't mean that there isn't a better of doing this.
You still have the option to just ignore existenz of tty* devnodes. > Having seperate dialout and dialin devices really are just a kludge > for having the kernel doing locking that could be done in userland > code. tty* vs cua* is more than just locking. > Just because FreeBSD does this the same way it's been done on > BSD-ish systems for the last 15 years doesn't mean there isn't a > better way of doing it. Yes, but this way it just works and applications used it for many years. -- B.Walter BWCT http://www.bwct.de [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
