From owner-freebsd-bugs Thu Sep 28 07:00:08 1995 Return-Path: owner-bugs Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id HAA14726 for bugs-outgoing; Thu, 28 Sep 1995 07:00:08 -0700 Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id HAA14705 ; Thu, 28 Sep 1995 07:00:02 -0700 Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 07:00:02 -0700 Message-Id: <199509281400.HAA14705@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs Cc: From: hohmuth@inf.tu-dresden.de (Michael Hohmuth) Subject: Re: bin/746: `talk' forbids talking from write-protected terminal for no good reason Reply-To: hohmuth@inf.tu-dresden.de (Michael Hohmuth) Sender: owner-bugs@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk The following reply was made to PR bin/746; it has been noted by GNATS. From: hohmuth@inf.tu-dresden.de (Michael Hohmuth) To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bin/746: `talk' forbids talking from write-protected terminal for no good reason Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 14:53:40 +0100 (MET) J Wunsch wrote: > As hohmuth@inf.tu-dresden.de wrote: > > > > The `talk' program has a misfeature in that it cannot be used except > > from a terminal with messages on ("mesg y"). When used from a > > write-protected terminal (messages off, "mesg n"), it complains that > > ``The callee cannot write to this terminal, use "mesg y"''. > > This has been discussed before with the conclusion that this feature > is believed to be okay. For example, the callee migh want to respond > to the talk request with a short message via write(1) saying that he's > going to have the talk later, instead of actually invoking the talk > right now. I believe this is an issue of the user's policy, not of the system's. I don't understand why a program should intentionally be crippled in order to enforce a policy the user may not want. Wouldn't it be OK to just print a warning message but allow usage of the program anyway? Michael -- Email: hohmuth@inf.tu-dresden.de WWW: http://www.inf.tu-dresden.de/~mh1/