Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!sri-unix!gwyn@BRL-VLD.ARPA From: gwyn@BRL-VLD.ARPA Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards Subject: Re: VT100 and bagbiting Message-ID: <1362@sri-arpa.UUCP> Date: Thu, 28-Jun-84 09:56:10 EDT Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.1362 Posted: Thu Jun 28 09:56:10 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 1-Jul-84 04:31:25 EDT Lines: 28 From: Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) This attempt to distinguish one end of the RS232 ASCII link as the TERMINAL and the other as the COMPUTER, then to assign asymmetrical rules to the two ends, seems artificial when some so-called terminals are smarter than the so-called computers they communicate with. The original use of Teletype terminals did not involve computers at all, and each unit would control the paper tape reader on the other when they were communicating like that. I watched the evolution of XON/XOFF from close up (I used both Teletype and high-speed peripheral paper tape on a variety of computers). It was a perfectly natural evolution to the current use for more general flow control. Some degree of flow control is necessary no matter how fast the internal logic of a terminal is. Consider: - user opens the lid of the Diablo to change its ribbon - terminal scrolls smoothly 6 lines/second while short lines are being received at a rate of 1920 chars/second Many (maybe even most) computer system and terminal vendors have faced up to this fact by now. The "VT52 emulating" terminal with fancier editing features than the VT100 wouldn't be one of those Visual 200s, would it, Ron? Having done termcap entries for both and tried them both, I choose the VT100 any day. Not to say that the VT100 is perfect, but it is not at all the big loser that people have been saying it is.