Subject: Re: Formal getty replacement yet?
To: Peter Seebach <>
From: Greg A. Woods <>
List: current-users
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. <>; UniForum Canada <>