getty and csuite

Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 16:57:00 -0700
From: John Nemeth <jnemeth@cue.bc.ca>
To: csuite-tech@chebucto.ns.ca
Cc: techteam@neale.gpfn.sk.ca
Precedence: bulk
Return-Path: <csuite-tech-mml-owner@chebucto.ns.ca>

next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects

Index of Subjects
On Oct 4,  6:34pm, "Michael T. Smith" wrote:
} On Sat, 3 Oct 1998, John Nemeth wrote:
} 
} >      This sounds like either the modems were misconfigured (didn't
} > have &C1 set), there is a problem with the serial cables (CD line
} 
} We went through all this and none of it helped. Actually the problem was
} either a bug in bash, gcc, or Solaris -- our trap on SIGHUP in the shell
} was preventing everything from getting the signal or being killed when the
} users hung up. Commenting out the trap worked around this. Once we get our
} backup system up and running we can play around with new versions of gcc,
} etc.

     Okay.  I've actually noticed a problem with SIGHUP on VTN.  Some
of our users have discovered that if they drop carrier when they get
the warning from timerd they won't get a blackout.  This is somewhat
nasty and rather annonying.  Eyeballing shell indicates that it should
be doing the right thing.

} mgetty is working well right now, and IMHO saf/sacadm/pmadm/stsmon is just
} a bit too much for a pretty simple task.

     Yes, I agree that the SVR4 method of handling terminals is
grossly overly complex.  It's designed to handle hundreds of
terminals, but who hooks up that many terminals directly to a single
UNIX host these days (remembering that SVR4 isn't very old).  However,
I think it is a good idea to use native services as much as possible,
in order to keep down the amount of code in CSuite and the maintenance
required.

}-- End of excerpt from "Michael T. Smith"

next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects