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