Xref: utzoo comp.windows.x:8131 comp.unix.questions:11810
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!tinman.cis.ohio-state.edu!bob
From: bob@tinman.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x,comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: X Terminals for Sun hosts over dial up phone lines
Message-ID: <BOB.89Feb21112937@tinman.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Date: 21 Feb 89 16:29:37 GMT
References: <2566@antique.UUCP> <DANA.89Feb21094308@dino.bellcore.com>
Sender: news@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Followup-To: comp.windows.x
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept of Computer & Information Science
Lines: 22
In-reply-to: dana@dino.bellcore.com's message of 21 Feb 89 14:43:08 GMT

In article <2566@antique.UUCP> hpk@antique.UUCP (Howard Katseff) writes:

   I would like to use one of these X terminals from home to access my
   Sun workstation at work over a dialup line.
   ...
   I have seen references to SLIP and 9600 baud modems but I am quite
   ignorant about such things.

In article <DANA.89Feb21094308@dino.bellcore.com> dana@dino.bellcore.com (Dana A. Chee) writes:
   I have a 9600 baud SLIP line from home, so I can give you a brief
   summary of what to expect ... NOTHING!!.  9600 is WAY too slow to
   run X over... For a summary, it would be very slow going, X was
   designed for a high speed network.

If all you want is an X terminal, you don't really want to bother with
becoming a part of the Internet.  SLIP is appropriate for providing IP
connectivity to remote workstations, but that's not really what an X
terminal is.

Without the overhead of SLIP, 9600 would be more tolerable for
interactive X applications.  A Trailblazer would be even better, since
it could try to batch and compress on the output side.