Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!mintaka!bloom-beacon!daemon
From: chuck@mitlns.mit.edu
Newsgroups: comp.emacs
Subject: Flow control
Message-ID: <1990Nov17.203241.16722@athena.mit.edu>
Date: 17 Nov 90 23:08:50 GMT
Sender: daemon@athena.mit.edu (Mr Background)
Organization: M.I.T. Lab for Nuclear Science
Lines: 31

-Message-Text-Follows-


   I've read RMS's notes on control-s/q flow control and I'm curious
about it. I don't work on Unix machines, and I wonder how they handle
flow control. Somewhere I got the impression that they did it by
setting up timings of operations and sending out enough null codes
after each command to ensure that the terminal has time to complete
the operation before starting the next (padding).

  If this is true I don't see how RMS can reasonably claim that
it is better than Xon/Xoff processing. This is not the same as
saying that characters other than Q and S should of been used
which may be a valid point if you have been using them for something
else. (I don't like reprogramming my fingers either). 

  Padding seems to be a miserable solution.  A computer and 
serial driver are wasting time sending lots of nothing. And
it can't reasonbly handle variable speed transmission, such
as data compressing modems or internet. Most people like having there
modems used for sending useful information, since thats one place
where time=$. Also the computer requires lots of data for every terminal,
which is a system maintenence burden.

  Someone care to set me straight? Is that really the typical way
flow control is handled on Unix systems? Should I keep search
bound to control s or should I change it? While I'm all for
configurable editors I also think a standard interface is a very
valuable thing.


				Chuck@mitlns.mit.edu