Subject: Re: tty0?
To: Bill Studenmund <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Greg A. Woods <email@example.com>
Date: 06/23/1996 22:32:36
[ On Sat, June 22, 1996 at 16:06:32 (-0700), Bill Studenmund wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: tty0?
> I think the best answer is that it should be changable; YOU decide what
> YOU want YOUR system to do. For a multi-person, or a production system, it
> makes sense to reset defaults after each close. Conversely, on my system
> at home, when I'm debugging talking to my DeskWriter, I want to stty some
> settings and have them stay. Using some #%*&&*#$ port-holding program
> seems frustrating and silly.
What, pray tell, is the difference between setting a flag in the driver
(and providing it the means to save state on a per-device basis),
vs. running a simple user-level utility?
I can tell you two real differences. One is that the user-level utility
is somewhat simpler, far more elegant, and much much easier to debug.
It doesn't require state to be kept in the kernel where it's difficult
to discern. On the other hand, the user-level utility "breaks" some of
the other normal port control behaviour, since now a process always has
the device open -- this may be a good or bad thing depending on what
you're trying to do.
> So I vote it's changable. On a per-tty basis.
I'd strongly prefer to see traditional UNIX behaviour here. I have some
minor recollection that POSIX.? or X/Open has something to say about
this though, and I would defer to either (though I hope they agree if
they both have something to say about it).
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 443-1734 VE3TCP robohack!woods
Planix, Inc. <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Secrets Of The Weird <email@example.com>