Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!virtech!cpcahil
From: cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: Equinox question
Message-ID: <2009Sep10.073648.815@virtech.uucp>
Date: 14 Feb 91 17:14:10 GMT
References: <27B79130.5C72@telly.on.ca> <1991Feb13.170319.13308@virtech.uucp> <1855@chinacat.Unicom.COM>
Reply-To: cpcahil@virtech.UUCP (Conor P. Cahill)
Organization: Virtual Technologies Inc., Sterling VA
Lines: 16

In article <1855@chinacat.Unicom.COM> chip@chinacat.Unicom.COM (Chip Rosenthal) writes:
>
>Conor...are you sure about that?  I use the Equinox boards.  I've done

It is correct that they won't do hardware flow control and modem control
on the SAME port.  You are correct that they have a work around that deals
with stealing signals from a second port.  However, that second port then
ends up without any control (modem or hardware flow).

We haven't found the need to do this on our system even though it would be
pretty easy since we use punch blocks for our connections off the system.

-- 
Conor P. Cahill            (703)430-9247        Virtual Technologies, Inc.
uunet!virtech!cpcahil                           46030 Manekin Plaza, Suite 160
                                                Sterling, VA 22170