Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcsun!unido!tub!tubopal!fub!geminix!gemini From: gemini@geminix.in-berlin.de (Uwe Doering) Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386 Subject: Re: more FAS&RTS Message-ID: Date: 7 Oct 90 16:27:16 GMT References: <1990Oct3.151720.22811@hq.demos.su> Organization: Private UNIX Site Lines: 33 dvv@hq.demos.su (Dmitry V. Volodin) writes: >>This RTS/CTS misunderstanding is VERY common and, I suspect, appeared >>when smart guys used to wire one computer's RTS to other's CTS to >>make flow control on direct links. What is really painful - other >>smart guys write smart drivers INCOMPATIBLE with canonical ones. >>SCO's interpretation is quite V.24-compliant, and FAS's - just >>clever incompatible hack. I'm aware of this problem. But if you look at high speed modems you'll find that the manufacturers have used this incompatible method for years. Therefor, it's only logical to write a driver like FAS which fully supports these modems (and other DCE). BTW, just a few months ago this full duplex method was adopted by the CCITT and its US counterpart. Now each pin (RTS and CTS) has two names. I don't remember the new ones at the moment but they use the old names (RTS and CTS) for the half duplex handshake and the new names for the full duplex method. The problem is if I use these new names in the FAS documentation nobody will know what I am talking about because the new names are almost unknown to the UNIX community, at least at this time. Therefor, I'll stick with RTS/CTS for the time being. To make clear what method is meant one could call it "full duplex RTS/CTS" or otherwise "half duplex RTS/CTS". I think this complies with the terminology modem (and other DCE) manufacturers use. Uwe -- Uwe Doering | Domain : gemini@geminix.in-berlin.de Berlin |---------------------------------------------------------------- Germany | Bangpath : ...!unido!fub!geminix!gemini