Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!sugar!peter
From: peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Multiple Serial Ports (Re: vt100 v2.9)
Message-ID: <3110@sugar.uu.net>
Date: 16 Dec 88 19:58:24 GMT
References: <8812150227.AA09671@postgres.Berkeley.EDU> <14049@oberon.USC.EDU> <14097@oberon.USC.EDU>
Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston, TX
Lines: 29

In article <14097@oberon.USC.EDU>, papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes:
> In article <3102@sugar.uu.net| peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
> |No it's NOT. "serial.device" doesn't support more than one UNIT...
>                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> |Anything they do to make "serial.device" accept multiple unit numbers (map
> |their memory in to some magic place, for example, or patch serial.device
> |to their code) is going to be (as I mentioned) a horrible kludge.

> Sorry, but I know for a fact that we will very likely see "somebody's" 
> serial.device with multiple unit numbers.

Well, calling it "serial.device" is a horrible kludge. They should give it
their own name. I'd rather binary patch every one of my modem programs to
the new name than rely on a driver that expects to be able to diddle with
the device list, doesn't let me access my own port.

> III. Serial drivers that have different names will also work with A-Talk III.

Well, why didn't you *say* so. Yes, folks, this man is doing the right thing.
Thank you.

Still and all, giving a new device the same name as an old one is really
uncool. Don't encourage it.
-- 
		    Peter da Silva  `-_-'  peter@sugar.uu.net
		     Have you hugged  U  your wolf today?

	          Disclaimer: My typos are my own damn busines#!rne