Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mit-eddie!bacchus!speter
From: speter@bacchus.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: X on MS-DOS?
Message-ID: <387@bacchus.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 29-Mar-87 02:43:41 EST
Article-I.D.: bacchus.387
Posted: Sun Mar 29 02:43:41 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 29-Mar-87 17:28:53 EST
References: <17364@ti-csl.CSNET>
Sender: daemon@bacchus.MIT.EDU
Reply-To: speter@athena.mit.edu (Peter Osgood)
Organization: MIT Project Athena
Lines: 65
Keywords: MS-DOS PC-DOS X
Xref: utgpu comp.windows.x:390 comp.sys.ibm.pc:2608

In article <17364@ti-csl.CSNET> peters@ti-csl.CSNET (Pat Peters) writes:

>We're looking into developing code for a PC (AT clone of some sort) to make
>it a network connected "smart terminal".  What I've heard described is kind
>of a cross between BLT (5620) capabilities and X (from what little I know
>about X).  Goodies would include:
>
>	- The ability to download code from the host (a Unix system of
>	  some sort) across the network


This is an easy solution.  Your Unix system should have a routine called
TFTP.  If not there is another routine, which you can buy yourself if you
have to, called Kermit.

Use your man pages on the Unix system to learn about TFTP.

>	- Windows, color, bit map graphics, mouse, etc 

As of yet, we, MIT, to the best of my knowledge see no way of putting
X on a PC of any type, save the RT when it is in Unix mode.

I suggest you buy Microsoft Windows or other such package for your 
work.  I have heard good things about it.

>	- Enough intelligence in the MS-DOS applications to handle routine
>	  dealings with humans and give concise commands across the network
>	  to the host.

There are ways to do this. The best way, or at least one of the best is
the telnet or rlogin routine which is supported by Unix.  The essencially
make your PC look like a smart periferal.  The are other command such as
rsh is Unix which can be of use.  The big thing is to get started.  You
should have enough information from here to do just that.


>X seems a good place to start for window management, etc.  Because MS-DOS
>isn't multi-tasking, we'll have all of those problems to deal with--if 
>something happens involving two or more windows, it's up to our code to
>remember to update them all.  
>
>I'm no expert on X, so I'm wondering:
>
>	- Has anyone worked with X on MS-DOS?

X does not work on MS-DOS.  

>	- Is there some basic structural 'feature' of X that won't work
>	  on MS-DOS?

It was developed by Brown U. for use exclusively on a Unix system.
I fear that were one able to port it to a PC you would need something
on the order of 30Meg to hold just it.
{
>	- In general, are we going to have LOTS of problems?
>
>Any input is appreciated.  Please respond by E-mail.  I don't follow these
>boards too closely.  I will be happy to post summaries if there is 
>interest.
>
>-- 
>Patrick Peters                 UUCP:    ut-sally!im4u!ti-csl!tifsie!pat 
>Texas Instruments                          sun!texsun!ti-csl!tifsie!pat
>PO Box 655012  M/S 3635                   uiucdcs!convex!smu!tifsie!pat
>Dallas, TX 75265               Voice:   (214)995-2786