Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!spdcc!dyer
From: dyer@spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix,comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: tty watcher
Message-ID: <267@spdcc.COM>
Date: Wed, 16-Sep-87 09:32:50 EDT
Article-I.D.: spdcc.267
Posted: Wed Sep 16 09:32:50 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 18-Sep-87 06:55:31 EDT
References: <4263@ozdaltx.UUCP> <15136@hi.UUCP> <1178@mtune.ATT.COM> <1180@mtune.ATT.COM> <4284@ozdaltx.UUCP>
Reply-To: dyer@spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer)
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Lines: 30
Xref: mnetor comp.unix.xenix:752 comp.unix.questions:4103

This is silly.  A BBS program running under DOS doesn't automatically
"come with" the ability to display what a user has been typing; it has to
be designed that way, especially if the sysop and the user are going
to both be typing at the same time (illusion of multi-programming.)
As far as I can see, DOS or the BBS program would require just as much
hacking to get it to display what you the user types; difference is,
most single purpose BBS already come with this feature.  I would be surprised
if you, as an example of "most users", could hack your version of DOS or
its serial driver to make it do what you want.  One point must be conceded,
namely, that because of the economics of the DOS world and the simplicities
of the DOS programming model, you are much more likely to find such a feature
available already for sale.  This isn't true for Xenix or any other UNIX.

If you needed user typein monitoring within the context of a UNIX-based
BBS system, then of course, there'd be no need for kernel hacking or
special device drivers--the program could be designed to allow monitoring
to a file upon receipt of a signal, or perhaps use some IPC feature of Xenix.  
However, given that you wanted the ability to see what the user is typing at
any time, within any program, then one of the suggested kernel-based solutions
is necessary.  This hardly seems unreasonable.  Of course, the same DOS
model, namely, assigning the console to be COM1, is even less flexible since
you, the operator, would be unable to do anything without a reboot!

It's too bad that, instead of pursuing some of the solutions, you dismiss them
out of hand.  It always takes one pioneer to take the risk so that the next
person who needs the same solution can get it "off the shelf."
-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@harvard.harvard.edu
dyer@spdcc.COM aka {ihnp4,harvard,linus,ima,bbn,m2c}!spdcc!dyer