Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ultra.UUCP!wayne From: wayne@ultra.UUCP (Wayne Hathaway) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: new terminal names Message-ID: <8904111615.AA00723@lear.ultra.com> Date: 11 Apr 89 16:15:25 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 45 > In article <8904061537.AA00580@lear.ultra.com> wayne@ultra.UUCP (Wayne Hathaway) writes: > >... It made no difference > >whether the terminals involved were 2741's, 2740's, 3270's ("modern" > >boob tubes), or even ASR33's -- they were ALL driven with the idea > >that there was a time for waiting for output and there was a time for > >typing input, and the HOST was the one who determined which was which. > Um, the ASR33, for all its other flaws, at least was full-duplex. It > didn't have IBM Terminal Disease. > -- > Welcome to Mars! Your | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology > passport and visa, comrade? | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu Well, the point I was trying to make was that it didn't MATTER on IBM operating systems whether the terminal was capable of full duplex operation or not, the system ran it as half-duplex with a "locked" keyboard. Since 2741's and the like could physically lock the keyboard, there was no confusion. One system I remember that supported ASR33's simulated the "locked" mode by just treating anything typed while "locked" as a BREAK character. (I think this was a requirement of the box -- 2703? -- used to connect the ASR33 to the mainframe.) Needless to say this was NOT a very nice user interface! Anyway, the only reason I commented earlier was that this seems to me to be another of those situations where a simplistic "their terminals are broken" explanation hides the REAL problem of a completely different user interface philosophy. Now it's UNIX, but back then it was TENEX, and you wouldn't believe the difficulties trying to get otherwise very bright people to even consider the possibility of alternative approaches. Right or wrong, better or worse, that wasn't the issue -- in general the TENEX crowd couldn't even COMPREHEND any alternatives enough to evaluate them. Blaming it on defective hardware provided a very easy out. If I felt that this problem died completely with the demise of TENEX parochialism then I wouldn't have commented. Unfortunately, the names have changed but the tunnel vision remains the same. Wayne Hathaway Ultra Network Technologies domain: wayne@Ultra.COM 101 Daggett Drive Internet: ultra!wayne@Ames.ARC.NASA.GOV San Jose, CA 95134 uucp: ...!ames!ultra!wayne 408-922-0100 PS: Love your quotes, Henry!