Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sample.eng.ohio-state.edu!purdue!haven.umd.edu!udel!princeton!njsmu!mccc!dworkin!shevett From: shevett@dworkin.UUCP ( Sysop) Newsgroups: comp.databases Subject: Re: Foxpro on SCO Xenix Message-ID: <53@dworkin.UUCP> Date: 28 Jun 91 00:32:02 GMT References: <1991Jun20.182306.26927@ucunix.san.uc.edu> <79012@brunix.UUCP> <51@dworkin.UUCP> <1991Jun24.152722.15072@compu.com> Lines: 36 fred@compu.com (Fred Rump) writes: >shevett@dworkin.UUCP ( Sysop) writes: >>the FoxBase under Unix is too limited in keyboard and video handling >>to be worth it. >What doesn't the keyboard do? Under Xenix, there is no way to trap more key definitions than those allowed under the termcap. Our DOS systems use Up,Down,Left,Right,Home, End,PageUp,PageDown, and all 10 function keys. We can't trap those keys in a meaningful way under Xenix. It just can't do it. > As for video, aren't you still stuck with dumb terminals as the > main limitation? Unless they do FoxPro for X nothing will really > change from that perspective. Yes and no. The interface under Xenix is *very* primitive. Again, the keyboard problems come to mind, but if you look at an application like WordPerfect, they are doing some mighty fancy keyboard and video functions on 'dumb' terminals. > We supply hardware and integration services to a software house > that sells a $60K foxbase application. They did not wait for > fancy video to come out. They simply automate warehouseing > applications. The problem is we need to port an application that is already running under DOS with a *very* specific user interface to Unix. We need the advanced video and keyboard functions. -------------------------------------------------------------------- shevett@dworkin.amber.mccc.edu | Dave Shevett - Lawrenceville, NJ CSAccess BBS (609) 584-8774 | Keeper of yon FoxPro mailing list --------------------------------------------------------------------