From: ijackson@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ian Jackson) Subject: Re: [NEW]: The Linux Device List Date: Sun, 9 May 1993 23:37:31 GMT
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
In article <1993May5.102510.12491@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> I proposed:
>>
>> tty[a-d] for the `standard' 4 ports
>> tty[e-o][0-f] for multi-port cards (ie tty<card><port>)
Later, in <1993May7.110338.22901@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, I wrote:
>>
>>IMHO the scheme with tty[S..]n is ugly, [...]
But in <jvsC6oM33.F91@netcom.com>, jvs@netcom.com (Jonathan Stockley) asks:
>
>Why is ttySn ugly as a serial port but not as a pseudo tty? :-) :-)
I'm not sure why you've put smileys in there. I shall suppose that you
are asking a serious question and answer it. Perhaps you think I would
otherwise take offence - if so I can reassure you that I'm not easily
offended :-). Ah, now I've done it too (put in a spurious smiley) :-).
ttySn is ugly as a pty as well, but it is better used for a pty for
two reasons: firstly it is well down in the list of ptys and so will
not be used most of the time - indeed with current kernels it is
beyond the maximum possible number, though there's talk of moving the
pty's to their own major number; secondly ttySn is similar to the
names of the other pty's tty[pqrsPQR]n etc.
>I agree there was some confusion when it was change from ttys[0-4] to
>ttyS[0-4]. For example Xconfig had the mouse on ttys0. But wont there be
>just as much confusion if we switch to tty[a-d]?
I think not; however there of course is always the potential for
mismanagement.
I think the advantages of a cleaner arrangment outweigh the temporary
disadvantage of the change; Linux is, after all, still in beta test
(despite SLS's version numbers >=1.0) - we should not allow ourselves
to be tied down to inferior arrangements for the sake of
compatibility. That way lies the madness of DOS.
>I think that Rick's proposal is fine and should be used as the "standard"
>way to go for distributions such as SLS, Yggdrasil et al. The fact that it is
>at least documented and maintained and published here gives it more than a
>little weight, surely?
We should adopt it because we have adopted it ? That's circular. Can't
you come up with any better reasons ? I haven't seen anybody criticise
my proposal apart from pointing out that it's different to what some
people have done already; I have put forward a number of reasons to
prefer my scheme.
>One last point before I meander home, why no discussion about other
>device names?
I thought I'd leave that one for now :-). Ones that come to mind as
perhaps needing further thought with varying degrees of urgency are
par[0-2] (!), tty0, tape-d and tape-reset and js[01].
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: 2.2
iQCVAgUBK+2VosMWjroj9a3bAQE6RwP8D8285hN2If3gWyq+WLS8dBcLlGcjouGU
UtQTFL2jHxVwkTaAVhFMkRxy9QYBTtvjp9iK0i0jEjEokH8pjWRxegSd9r4aQoLd
EVC+Mcj7Xtnf8zNpGh5quUtHPa5CRTtPfsbjYjCJWPNVd5q5m+CIpTKcUBJ1Y8/c
xg43DVBhI/Y=
=6Ozs
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
-- Ian Jackson <ijackson@nyx.cs.du.edu> (non urgent email only - see below) home: 35 Molewood Close, Cambridge, CB4 3SR, England; phone: +44 223 327029 work & urgent email: <iwj@cam-orl.co.uk> Olivetti Research Ltd; +44 223 343398 PGP2 public key on request; fingerprint = 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657