Jason Thorpe stands accused of saying:
>On Sat, 12 Jul 1997 03:37:31 -0400 
> "Joel N. Weber II" <devnull@gnu.ai.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > Maybe I'm missing something, but you can probably run a dumb terminal
> > without modem control lines.
>
>No, you're absolutely right...

No, he's absolutely wrong.  The keyboard port is run at TTL signal 
levels; you would need to build an external adapter which sucked the 
8V off the keyboard port and used it to power a set of line drivers.

>Given the current structure of the code, sanely attaching a dnkbd _or_
>an apci instance to the first uart is not all that easy (it cries out
>for something like the MI SCC driver's structure)...

Or, just allow the dnkbd to be attached (optionally) as a child of
an apci; then you could have _multiple_ keyboards!

>Basically, I had to make a trade-off for now... I think what I picked will
>give us the most functionality per sanity point spent.

Probably, although now you're talking about sanity I have a boon
to ask :

You may have noticed I haven't contributed anything for quite some
time now.  Time and disk problems aside, this has been because
it has proven _IMPOSSIBLE_ to obtain an intact NetBSD source tree.
Every weekend I sit down and say, "right, now let's get up to
date and look at some interim dnkbd patches so I can _use_ this
machine while I'm working on it".  By the end of the weekend, I
have given up in disgust because sup hangs, mistransfers files, 
can't connect, or whatever.

I have searched, in vain, for any alternative to sup for obtaining
said tree.  Is there anyone out there running something more useful,
like CTM perhaps?  If so, there is no mention of this on the NetBSD
pages.

Would it be too much to ask even for something like CVSup to be
ported and used?  If you haven't had a chance yet, I _strongly_
encourage you to put aside a couple of hours and play with it;
it'll change your opinion of remote source distribution forever.

Heck, I might even get desperate enough to do the port if I thought
it would get used...

>Jason R. Thorpe                                       thorpej@nas.nasa.gov

--
Mike Smith  Unix hardware collector  http://www.smith.net.au/~mike
The question "why are the fundamental laws of nature mathematical"
invites the trivial response "because we define as fundamental those
laws which are mathematical".  Paul Davies, _The_Mind_of_God_