From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 22:44:53 +0100
From: Derek Fawcus <dfawcus@cisco.com>
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <20081014214453.GA1599@cisco.com>
References: <e2f969e10810140522r4e874ef1n9f63d3cced7d53bf@mail.gmail.com>
	<2efe70578a028bec7b9068c6c9be849e@terzarima.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2efe70578a028bec7b9068c6c9be849e@terzarima.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Subject: Re: [9fans] several things
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 1e517886-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 02:15:15PM +0100, Charles Forsyth wrote:
> i'm surprised at any actual name longer than 512 (or even 256), not so much for plan 9, but
> because linux systems still seem to have that tiny TTY limit on the size of an input line,

err - I seem to recall reading some linux pty/tty source that implied a larger limit in
canonical mode - 4k/8k?  But that assumes the shells in question _use_ cannonical mode.