From: probreak@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (James Michael Chacon) Subject: Re: Is the SLS on tsx-11 *ready* yet? Date: 21 Jan 1993 00:41:46 -0600
johnsonm@stolaf.edu (Michael K. Johnson) writes:
>In article <1jkaccINN8a0@uwm.edu> rick@ee.uwm.edu (Rick Miller) writes:
> ...and what about Peter's ttyS? cludge? Personally, I don't like it.
> But what do I know, I'm just the Linux Device Registrar.
>Don't get huffy. There is nothing morally imperitive about ttysn,
>either. They used to be called tty64, tty65, tty66, etc, and then
>they were switched to make it more reasonable. However, it was not
>noticed at the time that that got in the way of high pty's. Peter has
>taken a brave step in eliminating namespace contention. Don't call it
>a kludge if you are the "Registrar" and haven't come up with anything
>better yourself. You are only entitled to call it a kludge if you
>have proposed something better, IMHO, and I haven't seen any better
>proposals, from you or anyone else.
>michaelkjohnson
I just wanted to add that I like it myself when I heard about it. I
remember the tty64, etc.. and didn't like those. Naming them ttys? really
confuses somethings that assume those are ptys. When I heard it had been
done on the SLS dist. I decided to make them here. Gives me 64 pty's now
instead of only 48 which is a big plus.
James