On Mon, 21 Aug 1995 17:35:38 +0200  Havard.Eidnes@runit.sintef.no wrote:
> 
> Well, if you want to duplicate "Big Iron" functionality in this
> area, why not also implement an "operator message" subsystem
> where an application can request and wait for operator
> intervention (and operator reply)?  Simply spitting these
> messages out to "random" terminals via syslog(3) or directly to
> the console seem like really bad hacks.

Well I wouldn't want to duplicate it :-)  I left Big Iron not ever 
to return (no smiley).

Presupposing syslog.conf is properly configured (root is supposed to 
know what they are doing, right :-), I don't see how we would be splitting
messages to "random" terminals.  One would hope syslog.conf would be 
sending them to terminals with people would care about, and be able
to deal with the situtation :-)

I could invoke the 'but dump(8) does this' argument, but I won't.

Unix is just all one giant hack to me, but I like it!