Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.development
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!constellation!rex!ben
From: ben@rex.uokhsc.edu (Benjamin Z. Goldsteen)
Subject: Re: Naming convention for tty-like devices
Message-ID: <C77J1C.LCI@rex.uokhsc.edu>
Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 05:24:47 GMT
Reply-To: benjamin-goldsteen@uokhsc.edu
References: <DERAADT.93May7134937@newt.fsa.ca> <C6xyBv.845@sugar.NeoSoft.COM> <1776@lucifer.UUCP> <C74vqy.JpJ@sugar.NeoSoft.COM> <C758LK.CB0@veda.is>
Organization: Health Sciences Center, University of Oklahoma
Lines: 32
adam@veda.is (Adam David) writes:
>peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>>In article <1776@lucifer.UUCP> rst@liciren.li.co.uk (Richard Thombs) writes:
>>> tty[a-z] Com ports
>>Because it's not obvious that 'ttyp' is a serial port and 'ttypa' is a pseudo
>>tty. Also, what do you do for more than 26 serial ports?
>Easy, let them be named tty[0-9][0-9a-z] and if there is ever a need for more
>than 360 serial ports just add another character to the name :-)
>That still does not answer what the virtual consoles should be named as.
>tty[0-9][0-9] like in syscons does not seem to be very appropriate.
Maybe it is just me and my DOS background...but I see no problem
with calling them com[0-9]*. Sure, that doesn't make sense to those of
you who worked with BSD 2.9 on PDP's or whatever, but these are PC's!
You may even want to start the numbering at one (oh no!). Your hardware
vendor is going to think you don't really know what you are talking
about when you say com0 isn't work...
As per virtual consoles, why not console0, console1, etc? Make
/dev/console a hard link to /dev/console0 (or hey, even make it follow
you -- that way, you won't ever be able to ignore those pesky
messages...)
I suppose my vote doesn't count because I am not running either
386BSD or NetBSD, but I hope to try again soon...
--
Benjamin Z. Goldsteen