Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!decwrl!decvax!tektronix!tekecs!nobody From: nobody@tekecs.TEK.COM (-for inetd server command) Newsgroups: comp.windows.x Subject: Re: A Thought on X Terminals Message-ID: <10960@tekecs.TEK.COM> Date: 1 Feb 89 18:36:38 GMT References: <19613@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> Reply-To: stank@anvil.UUCP (Stan Kalinowski) Distribution: comp Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville, OR Lines: 18 In article rls@onondaga.steinmetz.ge.com (Roderick Sprattling) writes: ... quoted material deleted ... >And this reflects my chief beef with the idea of X terminals. > >Because a terminal-based X server has no secondary storage, the manufacturer >must place resource data in static memory. Why can't an X-terminal have secondary storage? Just because it doesn't run some form of Unix(c), doesn't preclude it from having secondary storage of some sort. Stank US Mail: Stan Kalinowski, Tektronix, Inc. Information Display Group, Interactive Technologies Division PO Box 1000, MS 61-028, Wilsonville OR 97070 Phone:(503)-685-2458 uucp: {ucbvax,decvax,allegra,uw-beaver}!tektronix!orca!stank