Subject: XON/XOFF
To: None <port-i386@netbsd.org>
From: None <dribbling@thekeyboard.com>
List: port-i386
Date: 10/19/2000 22:18:54
Hello Greg!
GAW> ...more imporantly ^S and ^Q (which are the
> "standard" software XON and XOFF characters) are very
> commonly used emacs commands...
I'm having a really interesting email conversation with
Robert Kennedy about this. I'm a little surprised that those
keystrokes were chosen despite their historical use in
software handshaking. Robert seems to be suggesting that
unix (and it's derivatives) /depend/ on hardware handshaking
(apologies to Robert if I've got that wrong).
GAW> There's a big difference between what the original
> standards say about the electrical characteristics
> and maximum tolerances of RS-232 and what actually
> works in practice with modern line drivers and
> receivers.
True, as witnessed by the number of 'RS-232' ports running
at 115,200 BpS to support V.90 modems and so on. As a rule
of thumb I would rather adhere to an appropriate standard
than stretch an inappropriate one (obviously there are times
when it's expedient to bend that rule ;o)
GAW> RS-422 is cheaper in some respects...
It wasn't so much the expense, as the increased range it
offers (about 1,200m rather than 15m).
GAW> Running optical connections for normal terminals is
> out of this world...
I wouldn't normally consider it. I theoretically prefer
fibre between buildings for Electrical and EMC reasons.
Thankfully this isn't a challenge I'm facing at present.
Regards,
-Andy.
_____________________________________________
Free email with cool domains at FriendlyEmail
http://www.mypad.com/