Re: SUPDUP protocol


Michael Padlipsky (PADLIPSKY@A.ISI.EDU)
Mon 5 Oct 87 11:31:44-EDT


I seem to be missing something here, perhaps because I've yet to get
my hands on an X-Windows spec. Superfically, if I'm talking to a
command language interpreter--or, worse, an editor--that "expects"
character-at-a-time interaction from/with me, doing so in a windowed
environment ought to lead to more transmissions rather than fewer,
since I could be char-a-a-t in several windows rather than just the
one I'm used to. Don't want to sound like I'm still living in the
days when it was a survival trait to know how to make 026 drum cards
(though I must confess I do miss kepunches: unpunched cards were very
handy for keeping in breast pockets to make notes on), but unless the
window-oriented things contain some mechanisms for distinguishing
between what stays at the workstation and what goes to the Server
(or counterpart, or peer, or whatever it's fashionable to call the
other side these days) all we've got is jazzier interfaces to the
same old problem. Would somebody please clarify?
   puzzled cheers, map

P.S. Similar considerations apply to the subsequent msg about X.25
and TOPS-20: sure seemed as if case 2) (EMACS) was still doing
precisely what we're trying to avoid.... Which in a roundabout way
reminds me: can anybody speak to the rumor I recall hearing years ago
that RCTE wasn't actually a buggy protocol, it was just the
TIP's implementation that was at fault? (Seem to recall picking
that one up from somebody who had had something to do with the
Multics implementation of RCTE, after I'd left Project MAC, as
it was then known.)
-------



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 09 2000 - 14:39:34 GMT