UUCP Port Turnaround

[guy at gorodish.UUCP]

>I said "Berkeley philosophy", I didn't say that Berkeley made the change.

If Berkeley didn't make the change, then you shouldn't have said
"Berkeley philosophy"!  Blaming it on some alleged "Berkeley
philosophy" is just venting prejudices based on misinformation.

>I was referring to those 300K kernels I've seen running 4.2BSD and
>derivatives.

We've got a 3B2 in our lab; it's definitely *not* running 4.2BSD or a
derivative, and its kernel is bigger than the one on my workstation.
Yes, kernels are getting big, but blaming this on Berkeley is
ridiculous.

>Christ, there sure as hell's got to be a load of baggage
>in there that doesn't need to be there.

I only accept statements like this from people who can list the
aforementioned "baggage" and can give *good* reasons why it doesn't
need to be there.  There probably is stuff that could be cleaned out,
but I'd rather hear an *informed* opinion on that than an offhand
casual remark.

>Let's be sane about this, line turnaround might be a nearly free kernel
>feature, then again, it might be painful.

Yes, it might be either, which means your comment was content-free.

>You need to make the mods (correct me) in each serial device driver?

Yes, but rejecting such a change based on that, without looking at
the costs and benefits, is simply wrong.

>And many (most) users don't care about it one way or another.  It's for
>the little guy with just one serial port, one phone line.  The big guys
>have absolutely dumb (read cheap) modems on all the dial-ins, and a couple
>of autodialers on the dial-outs.

I got news for you; "seismo.css.gov" is not a "little guy with just
one serial port, one phone line", it's a major UUCP and Internet site
with many lines.  Rick found a small kernel hack worked quite well.
If you're going to spout off, make sure you know what you're talking
about first!