TIOCCDTR (bug|feature)

[jbc at ut-ngp.UUCP]

Gee! Less than 24 hours and flame mail already! I'm impressed....

One. I stated that I observed the problem "...on three supposedly 
well-maintained systems (2.8 w/ TCP/IP, 4.1, 4.1c)...." Some people
have taken this to mean 1) that I think that UCB provides support
similar to what has been promised for System V, or 2) that I think
they should and was being sarcastic. Neither is correct. My statement
should have been: "I have observed the problem on three different 
hosts, one running 2.8 w/ TCP/IP, one running 4.1bsd, and one running
4.1cbsd. All three systems are supposedly well-maintained [implying
if this had been posted before, then 1) it would have made it into at least
one of them, or 2) it wasn't considered a bug]." My apologies for
confusion, hurt feelings, and delusions of persecution resulting from
this ambiguity.

Two. My thanks to all the kind people who have suggested that I
write-protect my terminal (and thanks in advance to those who are
going to -- please don't). What if I want to carry on a conversation
with someone using write(1)? Do I unprotect my terminal and leave
it vulnerable? Do I make write setuid root, insuring that someone's
nroff output will be fouled eventually? Someone just suggested a
'.writerc' file to (dis)allow writing ... that's the ugliest idea
I've heard yet. And what about multi-user multi-terminal games that
expect a writable terminal? And ...

I think that 1) it's basically right that a terminal be writable
most of the time; 2) it's basically wrong that a process be able
to substantially affect a terminal which is not its control tty;
3) this whole discussion is going to wind up in net.flame Real
Soon Now....