Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:15512 comp.unix.wizards:14118
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-ncis!lll-lcc!ames!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: spiffy terminals
Message-ID: <9364@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 14 Jan 89 12:08:23 GMT
References: <443@marob.MASA.COM> <11067@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> <408@ispi.UUCP> <9357@smoke.BRL.MIL> <1010@hudson.acc.virginia.edu>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 13

In article <1010@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> gsh7w@astsun1.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
>I work a lot with the the National Radio Astronomy Observatory. If I
>design a new image programming package for use there which used
>X-windows how many people could use it? About four. If I designed a
>new image programming package that used a tek4010, how many people
>could use it? About one hundred.

We were talking about the justification for purchasing spiffy terminals
rather than el-cheapo terminals.  If you postulate that existing terminals
must be used, that's a different question.  In the context of the original
discussion, those using el-cheapo terminals should get good ones in their
place.  (By the way, I wasn't pushing X terminals.  The ones I mentioned
can emulate Tektronix 4010 series as well as cursor-addressable text ttys.)