larry@geowhiz.UUCP (Larry McVoy) (02/14/86)
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MASSAGE ***
Many thanks to all who responded to the hayes modem <==> uucp problem. The
solution I liked best was so simple, but *I* never thought of it. Just
put the appropriate hayes commands in the L.sys startup string. Uucico
doesn't care what it talks to so long as it gets a recognizable response.
Very slick, don't have to recompile, hack or anything. My kind of solution!
Thanks again,
--
Larry McVoy
-----------
Arpa: mcvoy@rsch.wisc.edu
Uucp: {seismo, ihnp4}!uwvax!geowhiz!geophiz!larry
"Just remember, wherever you go -- there you are."
-Buckaroo Banzaicampbell@maynard.UUCP (Larry Campbell) (02/14/86)
> Many thanks to all who responded to the hayes modem <==> uucp problem. The > solution I liked best was so simple, but *I* never thought of it. Just > put the appropriate hayes commands in the L.sys startup string. Uucico > doesn't care what it talks to so long as it gets a recognizable response. > Very slick, don't have to recompile, hack or anything. My kind of solution! > -- > Larry McVoy > Arpa: mcvoy@rsch.wisc.edu > Uucp: {seismo, ihnp4}!uwvax!geowhiz!geophiz!larry There is one difference that wasn't obvious to me for a while, so I thought I'd point it out. uucico distinguishes between a dial failure and a login failure. You can have multiple entries in L.sys for a system, with a different phone number in each entry; uucico will dial using each one in turn until it gets through, IF it encounters dial failures. But if it encounters a login failure (a failure in the expect-send sequence in L.sys) uucico stops right there and won't try any subsequent entries for that system in L.sys. -- Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc. ARPA: maynard.UUCP:campbell@harvard.ARPA 120 Fulton Street UUCP: {harvard,cbosgd}!wjh12!maynard!campbell Boston MA 02109
levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) (02/16/86)
<Oh oh here it comes. Watch out boy, it'll chew you up! \ Oh oh here it comes. The LINE EATER! [Line eater]> In article <252@maynard.UUCP>, campbell@maynard.UUCP (Larry Campbell) writes: >> Many thanks to all who responded to the hayes modem <==> uucp problem. The >> solution I liked best was so simple, but *I* never thought of it. Just >> put the appropriate hayes commands in the L.sys startup string. >> Larry McVoy >There is one difference that wasn't obvious to me for a while, so I >thought I'd point it out. uucico distinguishes between a dial failure >and a login failure. You can have multiple entries in L.sys for a >system, with a different phone number in each entry; uucico will dial >using each one in turn until it gets through, IF it encounters dial >failures. But if it encounters a login failure (a failure in the >expect-send sequence in L.sys) uucico stops right there and won't try >any subsequent entries for that system in L.sys. >Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc. This is not the case with Honey Danber UUCP, BTW. (Honey Danber is custom configurable to modems too, however, so the point would be moot. I don't see why uucp didn't have custom configuration for modems even in the beginning! It would have saved LOTS of headaches and hacking....) -- ------------------------------- Disclaimer: The views contained herein are | dan levy | yvel nad | my own and are not at all those of my em- | an engihacker @ | ployer or the administrator of any computer | at&t computer systems division | upon which I may hack. | skokie, illinois | -------------------------------- Path: ..!{akgua,homxb,ihnp4,ltuxa,mvuxa, vax135}!ttrdc!levy
mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) (02/17/86)
>I don't >see why uucp didn't have custom configuration for modems even in the >beginning! It would have saved LOTS of headaches and hacking....) Think back to the stone age of computing, around 1977. UUCP was originally written then. An "autodialer" was a special whizbang gizmo that DEC sold for your PDP-11, called a DN-11. You had to have one of those and several 212's hanging off your DZ. The concept of a modem that listened to the RS232 link for ASCII characters and dialed the phone number from them was totally alien at the time - a modem was a simple bit-stream encoder, it didn't even know what baud rate you were running at (except for the 212, which was a special purpose 1200 baud hack because the 300 baud protocol wouldn't work at 1200 baud.) Since there was only one kind of autodialer available for UNIX, and since it went through a special device separate from the line you wanted to dial out on, it took special C code to handle it. Recent versions of UUCP, such as HDB, handle today's auto-dial modems. But there are a LOT of UUCP's out there that haven't been enhanced much since the 1978 V7 release. The same applies to the cu command. Mark
smithrd@gc49.UUCP (Randy D. Smith) (02/17/86)
In article <743@ttrdc.UUCP> levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) writes: >... I don't >see why uucp didn't have custom configuration for modems even in the >beginning! It would have saved LOTS of headaches and hacking....) In the beginning?!? IN THE BEGINNING?!? Just how many "modems" do you think were in existence "in the beginning"??? Remember, this was a "research experiment" (or some-such), NOT a production system. Remember also that these were the days of "The Phone Company", and she controlled ALL units that connected to her sacred end points. Hayes & co. were just a twinkle in the entrepeneurs' eyes at the time! The UNIX(tm) System is just chock full of useful utilities, most of which probably started out as relatively simple, but elegant, tools in the bins of their originators. (I know, I know; no one can look at the code for uucp and think that this was ever the case for it...) Sure they should have been re-engineered before releasing as a production system, but the "release" of the UNIX System was very much a result of the whims of time, and not a well thought out, well engineered plan to revolutionize the computer world. To look back and say in hindsight that "foo should have been done bar way, not bletch way" is a bit presumptuous. (NOTE: I normally don't like disclaimers, but I think I should state that this is my opinion alone, and not that of my employer... I also know that some of my statements suffer from the same hindsight problem that I am complaining about.) -- Randy D. Smith (919) 279-5312 AT&T Technologies, Guilford Center, NC ....!{ihnp4,burl}!{gc49,gc3ba}!smithrd