jeffl@jack.UUCP (03/05/87)
[ See I'll prove that nasty ol' line eater is dead. ] I've gotten jove up and running on my AT&T 3b15. It's a nice editor, however I couldn't help but notice that if I was a BSD site I could have pseudo ttys. My question is has anyone out there in netland been working on getting SYSV.2 pseudo ttys running under jove? If so I would greatly appreciate hering from you. -- ============================================================================== | Everything should be made as simple || Jeff Lawhorn | | as possible, but no simpler. || {sdcsvax,ihnp4}!jack!jeffl | ==============================================================================
ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (03/06/87)
In article <132@jack.UUCP>, jeffl@jack.UUCP (Jeff Lawhorn) writes: > I've gotten jove up and running on my AT&T 3b15. It's a nice editor, > however I couldn't help but notice that if I was a BSD site I could > have pseudo ttys. My question is has anyone out there in netland > been working on getting SYSV.2 pseudo ttys running under jove? > If so I would greatly appreciate hering from you. > -- System VR2 pseudo ttys (the sxt devices) are not the same at all as Berkeley ptys. The Berkeley PTY's loop the pseudo terminal back to another device so that programs such as jove interpose themselves between the normal UNIX shell and stuff on the TTY-like device and one of their windows. The sxt devices only allows the real terminal to be switched between the set of pseudo ttys. There is no way to insert a program between the real tty and the pseudo tty. -Ron
rbj@ICST-CMR.ARPA.UUCP (03/09/87)
> In article <132@jack.UUCP>, jeffl@jack.UUCP (Jeff Lawhorn) writes: > > I've gotten jove up and running on my AT&T 3b15. It's a nice editor, > > however I couldn't help but notice that if I was a BSD site I could > > have pseudo ttys. My question is has anyone out there in netland > > been working on getting SYSV.2 pseudo ttys running under jove? > > If so I would greatly appreciate hering from you. > > -- > System VR2 pseudo ttys (the sxt devices) are not the same at all > as Berkeley ptys. The Berkeley PTY's loop the pseudo terminal > back to another device so that programs such as jove interpose > themselves between the normal UNIX shell and stuff on the TTY-like > device and one of their windows. The sxt devices only allows the > real terminal to be switched between the set of pseudo ttys. There > is no way to insert a program between the real tty and the pseudo > tty. > > -Ron (Natalie) OK folks, another radical porposal. Who needs software pty's if you've got real hardware ttys. Just get yourself an extra multiplexor and connect null modem cables between every pair. Run a getty (or even a shell!) on the odd ones and nothing on the even ones. Rename the even ones /dev/pty[0-3] and the odd ones /dev/ttyp[0-3] (I am assuming an 8 channel mux). OK, OK, so I'd really have `real' pseudo-ttys than `pseudo' real-ttys, but if that's what you're stuck with it just might work. (Root Boy) Jim "Just Say Yes" Cottrell <rbj@icst-cmr.arpa> Why did Paul Simon name his album after Elvis Presley's house?
jr@ALEXANDER.BBN.COM (John Robinson) (03/10/87)
>> OK folks, another radical porposal. Who needs software pty's if you've >> got real hardware ttys. Just get yourself an extra multiplexor and connect >> null modem cables between every pair. Run a getty (or even a shell!) on >> the odd ones and nothing on the even ones. Rename the even ones /dev/pty[0-3] >> and the odd ones /dev/ttyp[0-3] (I am assuming an 8 channel mux). >> >> OK, OK, so I'd really have `real' pseudo-ttys than `pseudo' real-ttys, >> but if that's what you're stuck with it just might work. Not too well. Unix tty output generally blasts along at a great clip, while Unix tty input is real sluggish. The output direction from the real process would quickly outrun the input buffers to emacs or whoever owns the "pty". So you'd have to turn on both flow control and TANDEM, thus losing ^Q and ^S each direction. "Real pseudo" tty's can and do provide much better flow control than this because the kernel can synchronize the user processes with much greater ease in ways that don't mess up the user data stream. /jr >> Why did Paul Simon name his album after Elvis Presley's house? Why did Ritchie & Thompson name input flow control after a non-stop computer?