Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac:40614 comp.sys.mac.programmer:9861 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!uunet!mcsun!sunic!tut!santra!kampi.hut.fi!jmunkki From: jmunkki@kampi.hut.fi (Juri Munkki) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.mac.programmer Subject: Re: 11 New Features Keywords: 11's,New,Features,Update Message-ID: <25791@santra.UUCP> Date: 20 Oct 89 14:30:11 GMT References: <969@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM> <25744@santra.UUCP> <974@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM> <14138@well.UUCP> <979@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM> Sender: news@santra.UUCP Reply-To: jmunkki@kampi.hut.fi (Juri Munkki) Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland Lines: 59 In <979@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM> ngg@bridge2.3Com.com (Norman Goodger) writes: >I have spoken to Scott today, and yes WK11 does not support the Comm Tool >Box and like you Leonard, Do not think that not supporting the CTB (nice >acronym) does not mean that WK11, Microphone, or any other terminal is >now obsolete. I think that Jurri Munki obviously does not understand what >the CTB is, otherwise he would have not made such an ambiguous statement. Interesting... Maybe it's not enough that I write terminal software for a living and that I have the APDA beta release of the communications toolbox... Now suppose that I have a user that is used to White Knight/RR. He or she will want to use the same software at the office, but we happen to use telnet connections instead of physical terminal connections. The toolbox would allow this user to access the telnet services with WK/RR, if it allowed the user to select the communication channel with the toolbox. There's also the situation where a customer comes asking for a good Tektronix emulator that works in color and supports the . The toolbox will allow that customer to connect these two with the correct terminal software. The choice of terminal software will then depend on the scripting/macro capabilities and user interface and not the fact that the program is capable of using these connections. Then there's Unix Windows. Some of you may have tried this program and discovered that the concept works, but the terminal emulation (and international support) is not what it should/could be. Again, the toolbox will save you. Of course old terminal software will be useful for a long time. At least unless someone buys a NuBus serial card that only comes with a connection tool for the communications toolbox. WK/RR will be unusable to this customer. As long as all terminal emulators are equal (as long as none of them support the toolbox), WK/RR still has a chance in the competition. Of course you shouldn't write an emulator that only supports CTB connections. You should allow the user to use old-style connections and emulators. Most users will not install CTB because it uses some disk & RAM space and is probably marginally slower than a custom tailored application. Perhaps you would like to point out how I have misunderstood the communications toolbox. I had the idea of writing the ideal terminal emulator about two or three years ago. The project died because of lack of funding & time. The idea was to have separate tools for communicating (serial, uw, telnet), file transfer (kermit, xmodem) and terminal emulation. The only real difference was that the terminal emulation modules would have used a set of callback routines to write & modify the screen. I also started designing international translation modules that would be based on simple tables, but could also call user-installed code. I stopped working on the project when I had a multi-tty application skeleton with capability to select tools and translators separately for each window. _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._ | Juri Munkki jmunkki@hut.fi jmunkki@fingate.bitnet I Want Ne | | Helsinki University of Technology Computing Centre My Own XT | ^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^