Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!sgi!shinobu!odin!snake.esd.sgi.com!spence
From: spence@snake.esd.sgi.com (Spencer Murray)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.sgi
Subject: Re: xdm
Keywords: xdm, xdmcp
Message-ID: <1991Mar22.005900.28894@odin.corp.sgi.com>
Date: 22 Mar 91 00:59:00 GMT
References: <3518@lamont.ldgo.columbia.edu>
Sender: news@odin.corp.sgi.com (Net News)
Reply-To: spence@snake.esd.sgi.com (Spencer Murray)
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc.
Lines: 33

In article <3518@lamont.ldgo.columbia.edu>,
benno@lamont.ldgo.columbia.edu (benno blumenthal) writes:
|> We are running IRIX 3.3, and xdm doesn't seem to support XDMCP (it is
|> awfully hard to tell why a program does not respond to a port it is
|> supposed to be listening too, so I cannot be too sure about what exactly
|> is going on).  Back in Dec90, I called the hotline, and they cheerfully
|> told me that it doesn't work.  They also said that they were not too
|> sure whether it would ever be fixed, since XDMCP only exists to talk
|> to X-terminals and SGI does not make them.
|> 
|> This was not the answer I wanted.  My question is this: has SGI fixed
|> this bug in 4.0?  Are you ever going to fix it?  Is there some alternative
|> to xdm which makes fixing xdm pointless?
|> 
|> I think it should be pretty clear that supporting x-terminals is in SGI's
|> interest -- X-terminals are useless in a vacuum, and they tend to make
|> people buy bigger and better machines so they can hook up lots of
x-terminals
|> to them.
|> 
|> Benno Blumenthal  Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory of Columbia
University
|>                   Palisades NY 10964     (914) 359-2900 x350
|> 
|> internet:  benno@lamont.ldgo.columbia.edu
|> 	or benno@rainbow.ldgo.columbia.edu
|> bitnet:    benno%lamont.ldgo@columbia.edu

The above-mentioned bug has been fixed and will be available in 4.0.

spence@sgi.com
window systems
silicon graphics, inc.