Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!gancarz
From: gancarz@decvax.UUCP (Mike Gancarz)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: X on a VT220?
Message-ID: <42@decvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 14-Apr-87 10:13:32 EST
Article-I.D.: decvax.42
Posted: Tue Apr 14 10:13:32 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 18-Apr-87 23:44:41 EST
References: <35@decvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: gancarz@decvax.UUCP (Mike Gancarz)
Followup-To: comp.windows.x
Distribution: world
Organization: Ultrix Engineering Group, Digital Equipment Corp.
Lines: 25
Keywords: twm, VAX, user interface, VT220

In article <> len@geac.UUCP (Leonard Vanek) writes:
>
>Mike, would your twm work on our Vax 8650 -- assuming that I had
>a vt220 X server, of course?
>

Twm does not use a mouse.  And it was developed on a VAX.

>By the way, does anyone have such a server? I have had a go at
>cutting out the graphic and mouse dependent parts of the X11
>protocol, but have not attempted an implementation because I do
>not have version 11 of X.

Let me ask a (perhaps foolish) question:  Why would you want to port
X to a VT220?  An X implementation on a VT220 is likely to suffer
because of bandwidth, resolution, etc.  If you sold the VT220's
to an MIS shop and purchased bitmapped terminals (cheap nowadays) or
diskless workstations (not so cheap--yet), the relative ease of the
port would more than make up the cost differential.

Of course, running a VT220-based X server inside a VT220 terminal emulator
running on a workstation with a "real" X implemenation would be an
interesting curioddity...

--Mike