Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site petrus.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!hammond From: hammond@petrus.UUCP (Rich A. Hammond) Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards Subject: Re: Accusing Bell of NIH (formerly Re: useless digest reference) Message-ID: <473@petrus.UUCP> Date: Mon, 19-Aug-85 09:23:59 EDT Article-I.D.: petrus.473 Posted: Mon Aug 19 09:23:59 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 23-Aug-85 07:20:15 EDT References: <64@brl-tgr.ARPA> <311@baylor.UUCP> <120@desint.UUCP> <277@kitty.UUCP> <651@psivax.UUCP> Organization: Bell Communications Research, Inc Lines: 18 > Stanley Friesen writes in reference to ioctl (Sys V vs BSD): > ... The > only really simple improvement was the OPOST idea, which Berkeley has > implimented as LLITOUT! Maybe I should get the ioctl system I designed > few years ago and post an outline of it to the net!(It is of course > unimplemented). > Gee, what a choice, the inflxibility of V7 ioctl or the > overweaning complexity of Sys3/5 ioctl! Someone *please* implement > a rational system. > Well, at least on my BSD system LLITOUT doesn't work properly, it takes more than one ioctl to get its effects propagated through the driver. On the other hand, the last Sys V I used, OPOST worked fine, and with KMC's the output speed was pretty nice. Besides, the man pages for my 4.2 BSD tty(4) are 9.5, for Sys V termio(7) they are only 7. I don't find Sys V more complex, but tastes differ. Rich Hammond