/dev/cua? Vs /dev/ttyS? (was: Re: co-existance of pppd and mgetty ?)

Tony Nugent (tonyn@sctnugen.ppp.gu.edu.au)
Mon, 13 May 1996 07:57:09 +1000

Helmut Riegler <helmut@sparc1.fast.co.at> said:

> On Wed, 8 May 1996, Jon Lewis wrote:
> > On Sun, 5 May 1996, Allen Curtis wrote:

> > Make sure you're using ttyS1 also for dialout. Forget whatever you've
> > heard about cua being for dialout and ttyS for dialin. With that, it
> > should work...I do it all the time.
> I think splitting ttyS? and cua? for incoming and outgoing calls is a bad
> idea. I tried to setup my system with Hylafax, SLIP, UUCP seyon and also
> for incoming calls.
> It wasn't possible with this splitting. I think the point is that the
> UUCP style locking must work for every application. This implies that the
> lockfile must be the same. Then you won't get problems.
> I am not sure wether it is better to use ttyS? or cua? for all. I am
> using the cua? ports because I had problems to setup Hylafax with ttyS?.
> It seems there are small differences in the behavior.
> With cua? I have no problems with my applications.

Can someone kindly explain the difference between the /dev/cua? and
/dev/ttyS? devices?

Exactly how _should_ they be used?

(10 points for the correct answer :-)

Cheers .
Tony _--_|\
tony@sctnugen.ppp.gu.edu.au / *\ T.Nugent@sct.gu.edu.au
ae.nugent@student.qut.edu.au\_.--._/ tnugent@cit.gu.edu.au
Brisbane, Queensland v Australia
One of the great disadvantages of hurry
is that it takes such a long time.