Subject: Re: Formal getty replacement yet?
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: VaX#n8 <email@example.com>
Date: 12/20/1994 18:47:02
While really really bored, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> You certainly don't want the async driver to support a port as either
> DCE or DTE, even though it *could*.... Sure, no more null-modem cables,
> but talk about complexity!
Hey, there's an idea! (HHOJ)
Seriously, though, the great thing about our OS is that we can change stuff,
and we shouldn't be afraid to try crazy hacks as long as they are (1) optional
and (2) clearly marked as being crazy hacks. You don't want Joe Q. Random
trying out your alpha level parallel-port-to-SCSI-driver and then moaning
to the core people about how their OS crashes. But you certainly shouldn't
prevent people from trying it (as long as they know what to do if it goes
awry and who to complain to, if anyone). After all, ``Unix doesn't try to stop
you from doing stupid things, because then it would stop you from doing very
clever things'' or somesuch.
I wouldn't mind seeing more drivers in the kernel.
Just don't take out the high-performance, stable (simple?) drivers in favor of
complicated experimental ones.
Nobody likes being told "The proper way to fix your system is to throw it in
the garbage can". If it saves me money, and costs nothing to install, I'm
all for it. As much as I hate cruddy hardware, sometimes you get a "lemon".
Too bad holding a CVS src tree AND a working src tree takes so much disk. :(
VaX#n8 (vak-sa-nate) - n, CS senior++ and Unix junkie - firstname.lastname@example.org
Just the vax-man. Read my MIPS, no new VAXes! - PGP key on request