From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 24 19:48:38 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D89E16A4CE for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:48:38 +0000 (GMT) Received: from srv1.cosmo-project.de (srv1.cosmo-project.de [213.83.6.106]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93D3943D1F for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:48:37 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: from cicely5.cicely.de (cicely5.cicely.de [10.1.1.7]) (authenticated bits=0)j0OJmLHo063078 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK); Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:48:22 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: from cicely12.cicely.de (cicely12.cicely.de [IPv6:3ffe:400:8d0:301::12]) by cicely5.cicely.de (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j0OJm2U3044100 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:48:02 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: from cicely12.cicely.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cicely12.cicely.de (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j0OJm1nF022293; Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:48:01 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: (from ticso@localhost) by cicely12.cicely.de (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id j0OJm1no022292; Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:48:01 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ticso) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:48:01 +0100 From: Bernd Walter To: Sam Leffler Message-ID: <20050124194800.GI628@cicely12.cicely.de> References: <20050124083043.GA8729@kukulies.org> <20050124151612.GC628@cicely12.cicely.de> <20050124124250.A27718@pix.net> <20050124180840.GH628@cicely12.cicely.de> <41F548D6.9060409@errno.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <41F548D6.9060409@errno.com> X-Operating-System: FreeBSD cicely12.cicely.de 5.2-CURRENT alpha User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=2.64 X-Spam-Report: * -4.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.64 (2004-01-11) on cicely12.cicely.de cc: hackers@freebsd.org cc: ticso@cicely.de cc: "Kurt J. Lidl" Subject: Re: ttyd0/cuad0 - why is there still this duality ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: ticso@cicely.de List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:48:38 -0000 On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 11:13:26AM -0800, Sam Leffler wrote: > Bernd Walter wrote: > >On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 12:42:50PM -0500, Kurt J. Lidl wrote: > > > >>On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 04:16:13PM +0100, Bernd Walter wrote: > >> > >>>On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 09:30:43AM +0100, Christoph P. Kukulies wrote: > >Yes, but this way it just works and applications used it for many > >years. > > > > Portable modem-aware applications have never used it (speaking as > someone that wrote many modem-oriented applications like tip and > hylafax). I've never found a case where you cannot implement the > equivalent functionality outside the kernel. The following scenario: Null modem cable and getty on both sides. Works fine with any outdialin software in both directions and with automatic disconnect on DCD (issued by remote DTR) loss. How would you handle this without dual mechanism? -- B.Walter BWCT http://www.bwct.de bernd@bwct.de info@bwct.de