Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken!aunro!alberta!arcsun.arc.ab.ca!arcsun!kenw From: kenw@skyler.arc.ab.ca (Ken Wallewein) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.comm Subject: Re: PacerTerm announcement Message-ID: Date: 7 Jun 91 00:10:48 GMT References: <55534@nigel.ee.udel.edu> <11884@hub.ucsb.edu> <1991Jun6.140312.1719@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Sender: nobody@arc.ab.ca (Absolutely Nobody) Organization: Alberta Research Council, Calgary Alberta, Canada Lines: 31 In-Reply-To: dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu's message of Thu, 6 Jun 1991 14:03:12 GMT In article <1991Jun6.140312.1719@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) writes: In article kenw@skyler.arc.ab.ca (Ken Wallewein) writes: >time. However, only one of those can be a serial (modem) session. If one >were running SLIP, AppleTalk, PPP, or some other high-level protocol across >a serial line to a remote node, one could theoretically have multiple >sessions across it You mean like I've been doing with John Bruner's uw for four years or more? Good point. Not quite the same idea -- certainly not high-level protocol -- but, hey, it works. Only with Unix, though... >but you'd loose a _lot_ of speed to overhead If you have a lot of simultaneous output, sure. That's really not a big consideration, IMHO; multiple windows are far more often used to maintain multiple contexts than to have several endlessly blathering processes going. I was referring protocol overhead. I've run a PacerLink serial session over Asynchronous AppleTalk over a serial line. It made a teletype look fast. I imagine a telnet session over SLIP or PPP would be comparable. -- Steve Dorner, U of Illinois Computing Services Office Internet: s-dorner@uiuc.edu UUCP: uunet!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!s-dorner -- /kenw Ken Wallewein A L B E R T A kenw@noah.arc.ab.ca R E S E A R C H (403)297-2660 C O U N C I L