Subject: Re: Formal getty replacement yet?
To: J.T. Conklin <email@example.com>
From: Rob Healey <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 12/19/1994 16:11:21
> > Has anybody come up with a formal replacement for that pathetic
> > excuse for a getty that is in NetBSD? It doesn't even respect
> > UUCP's lock files!!! I know there are many replacements out there
> > but has any thought been given to selecting one and making it
> > NetBSD "standard"?
> I didn't think changing NetBSD's getty into some sort of "uugetty" was
> even under consideration.
> I remember what great fun it was debugging bidirectional modem ports
> under Xenix/286. Uugetty sometimes decided that modem responses was
> someone trying to log in, and would continue to chat until I
> recognized the problem.
> I thought we wanted separate /dev/ttyXX and /dev/cuaXX devices
Contrary to experiences of most in this group, judging by the
responses, my experience is more loss of hair with the 2 device
setup than with the single device and user level UUCP type locks.
I already use FlexFax as my getty replacement so getty replacement isn't
an issue for me personally. Also, I would like to point out that when
people send mail to current-users it does NOT imply x86 architecture!!!
I've received many x86 replys which do no good on either my Amiga m68k
or Sun SPARC system... Remember that NetBSD is one of the most
widely ported UNIXi in the world and x86 is one of 6 or more