Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ukma!psuvm.bitnet!psuvax1!burdvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: UNIX Futures
Message-ID: <1081@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 2-Apr-86 11:13:36 EST
Article-I.D.: psivax.1081
Posted: Wed Apr  2 11:13:36 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 5-Apr-86 07:40:46 EST
References: <3289@sun.UUCP> <57700002@hpcvlo.UUCP> <127@sering.mcvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 24

In article <127@sering.mcvax.UUCP> dpk@sering.UUCP (Doug Kingston) writes:
>Shell layers is a way to get around not having true windowing.  If you
>have a real windowing system, then you don't need shell layers.  As has
>been mentioned by others, shell layers are deficient in several areas.
>
>As for Berkeley job control, this is another matter.  As a mechanism
>for handling multiple jobs simultaneously, it is a poor second to
>a true windowing system.  I know.  I use BLIT terminals and SUN-like
>workstations every day.

        I agree, a windowing system is the best solution. The question
is, can a practical windowing system be designed to work on a normal
24 X 80 ASCII terminal without graphics capability? Not everyone can
afford fancy stuff like BLIT's and SUN's. We only have about three of
them here at Pacesetter and they are reserved for CAD/CAE work! I am
stuck with a normal terminal. In the absence of a windowing system for
such terminals Berkeley job control is far better than what is
available on Sys V.
--

                                Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa