Subject: Re: Formal getty replacement yet?
To: Peter Seebach <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Greg A. Woods <email@example.com>
Date: 12/21/1994 15:04:46
[ On Wed, December 21, 1994 at 11:47:36 (PST), Peter Seebach wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: Formal getty replacement yet?
> I'll put myself firmly in the one-device per device school. I can tolerate
> the minor numbers/density hacks for 1/2 inch tape, though it's ugly. However,
> there is *no* reason for the kernel to take over this monitoring. Most
> visibly, there are cases where it will be wrong. You can decide to ignore
> a lock file. You can wilfully remove it. But if ever, ever, there is a bug
> in the kernel's code for device locking, you can have bigger problems. The
> kernel should not be the one with state awareness for that device. All user
> programs can agree to be responsible about checking their lock files, and
> programs that have good reason not to pay attention (stty comes to mind) can
> do what they want. (stty? Yes, stty; haven't you ever gotten a voice call
> from someone asking you to set a bit on /dev/ttyxx because they can't type
> until it's set, and etc. etc. etc.?) But if the kernel thinks a device is
> locked, Bad Things Happen.
I'm glad someone can say those things more clearly than I can!
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 443-1734 VE3TCP robohack!woods
Planix, Inc. <firstname.lastname@example.org>; UniForum Canada <email@example.com>