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.
Portable modem-aware applications have never used it (speaking as someone that wrote many modem-oriented applications like tip and hylafax). I've never found a case where you cannot implement the equivalent functionality outside the kernel.
Sam _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
