Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 19:20:18 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: brett@lariat.org (Brett Glass) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert), winter@jurai.net (Matthew N. Dodd), bright@wintelcom.net (Alfred Perlstein), brooks@one-eyed-alien.net (Brooks Davis), dscheidt@enteract.com (David Scheidt), troy@picus.com (Troy Settle), freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Gimme FreeBSD anyday! Message-ID: <200002161920.MAA17806@usr02.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20000216114210.04307b30@localhost> from "Brett Glass" at Feb 16, 2000 11:50:27 AM
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >250ms of line silence, according to Technical Aspects of Data > >Communication, McKneely, Digital Press, where in the appendices > >they reproduce the Bell 103c and Bell 212 standards. > > The exact amount isn't part of any standard, unfortunately. Actually, it's part of the Bell 103C standard, defining how modems should function. DEC implemented the break on VT100 terminals to be "as long as the break key remained depressed". However, it seems to me that the only reason for varing from the 250ms 103C definition is to allow you to break in a shorter time at a higher baud rate, since so long as you were going at a higher baud rate, you would have more sampling intervals to detect the break than at a lower baud rate. As far as timings, I've always wondered why in _hell_ vendors did not adhere to the RS232C specification when it came to implementing external clock pins. I mean, we would never, ever have had to care about baud rate matching if they had implemented this stuff according to the specification. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200002161920.MAA17806>