Subject: Re: TTY virtualization driver
To: NetBSD Kernel Technical Discussion List <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Greywolf <email@example.com>
Date: 01/24/2002 11:29:30
On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Greg A. Woods wrote:
# [ On Thursday, January 24, 2002 at 08:41:35 (+0100), firstname.lastname@example.org wrote: ]
# > Subject: Re: TTY virtualization driver
# > > I personally think there's more benefit to doing this kind of name
# > > mapping in ttys, network interfaces (at least per physical layer type),
# > THIS WOULD BE REAL MESS!
# On the contrary. It would be a joyful and elegant state of uniformity.
This is coming down to a matter of opinion. In the end, as always, it's
going to boil down to whose opinion is technically sound and whose will
be implemented. There is no historical data to show that these two
coincide on a regular basis.
# > it would be almost linux.
# You really must learn to judge ideas just by their basic merits, not by
# botched implementations of them.
Greg, you need to understand that some concepts work for some people and
not for others. I see enough people complaining about this particular
issue right now that it leads me to believe they can't ALL be blowing
# > for me it's easier "i connected to my second cyclades card port 17, so i
# > need to use /dev/ttyZ1017"
# The world of systems supported by NetBSD is much wider and more varied
# than your view of it seems to be.
At least hitherto it has lived in a world in which it could create its
own sanity. Dynamic (re)assignment on new hardware violates the
PoLS in a large way, especially for terminal connections. "Mmmmyeah,
I think I'll run the getty out the line that's hardwired to the other
system's console today."
No, thank you.
NetBSD, Net Improvement.