Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ucsfcgl!cca.ucsf.edu!wet!epsilon
From: epsilon@wet.UUCP (Eric P. Scott)
Newsgroups: news.newusers.questions
Subject: Re: when to talk(1) and when not to talk(1)
Summary: Social agreement
Message-ID: <805@wet.UUCP>
Date: 30 Nov 89 12:36:42 GMT
References: <1989Nov29.041239.16159@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
Reply-To: epsilon@wet.UUCP (Eric P. Scott)
Organization: Wetware Diversions, San Francisco
Lines: 29

In article <1989Nov29.041239.16159@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
	wayne@csri.toronto.edu (Wayne Hayes) writes:
>	It is obviously a matter of preference

You've answered your own question.  Whatever you agree on is
accepted etiquette.  Personally, I prefer talk-like programs
to a barrage of write(1)s.

>                                                          (Example
>of possible data corruption:  the recipient is logged in via modem
>and is currently engaged in an up/download.  Having a bonus of 5
>lines of garbage appearing during a block transfer could be 
>disasterous.  I even turn off message acceptance while I'm doing
>modem transfers to avoid this.

Any decent transfer program will do this automatically--the
"original" UNIX program that disabled messages while it ran was
pr(1).  ex/vi has an option to do this while you're in visual
mode.  And yes, you can always do  mesg n  if you're not sure.
A.D.T.P. will also NOT find a bunch of garbage disastrous; it
just won't do the "intended" thing (display the message).

					-=EPS=-
BTW, someone else asked abouut the "w" program--this is peculiar
to BSD UNIX systems.  Sys V users might find the "whodo" program
an acceptable substitute.  The talk referred to above is also a
BSDism, although equivalents for other systems might be found in
the comp.sources.unix archives.  Who knows, I might even post one
(yes, I got the hint, thank you).