Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!cornell!rochester!udel!rminnich
From: rminnich@udel.EDU (Ron Minnich)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: UNIX windows
Message-ID: <1582@louie.udel.EDU>
Date: 16 Mar 88 20:04:24 GMT
References: <2999@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <1144@louie.udel.EDU> <4500@garfield.UUCP>
Reply-To: rminnich@udel.EDU (Ron Minnich)
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Delaware
Lines: 20
Keywords: UW, Unix Windows, Telecom, terminals

In article <4500@garfield.UUCP> john13@garfield.UUCP (John Russell) writes:
>In article <1144@louie.udel.EDU> rminnich@udel.EDU (Ron Minnich) writes:
>>For all of you thinking about uw, ...
>>I would STRONGLY recommend that you bag uw and move on over
>>to DNET. DNET is uw done right for the amiga, more or less, in 
>>that it really uses the amiga multitasking in a way that uw could not
>
>This is the first I've ever heard of DNET. I'm assuming it's PD, is it easily
>available (ie via the sources/binaries groups or e-mail)?
You can ftp it from berkeley.edu. Get amiga/dnet.*.tar and away you go.

   Now before i forget i just wanted to let they guy who ported
uw to the amiga know that i think he did a real nice job, and i 
was not criticising his port of uw. The problem with uw is not the
port on the amiga, it is the protocol itself, which is limited to seven
channels, and not easily changed. Dnet has more room for growth.
But, yes, uw was nice in its time, and, dnet is a better protocol.
ron
-- 
ron (rminnich@udel.edu)