Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!pasteur!ames!amdcad!rpw3
From: rpw3@amdcad.AMD.COM (Rob Warnock)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: new terminal names
Message-ID: <25207@amdcad.AMD.COM>
Date: 13 Apr 89 01:02:16 GMT
References: <8904111615.AA00723@lear.ultra.com>
Reply-To: rpw3@amdcad.UUCP (Rob Warnock)
Organization: [Consultant] San Mateo, CA
Lines: 25

By the way, dropping support for go-ahead may not be a disaster, even if
you have some of those "old" terminals. Back in 19-ought-74 (or so), at
Digital Communications Assoc., we made our network processors capable
of doing the reverse -- supporting 2741's as "full-duplex" terminals
on PDP-10's. [Why? Well, there were these customers who had 2741's...]

It may have been sluggish [and by modern sensibilities *ug-lee!*], but
it worked. You could even run character-at-a-time programs like TECO
and DDT on a 2741. [You know, type "1234/" and the contents of location
"1234" come out on the same line.] Yes, we required the 2741 to have the
"reverse break" option, wherein the host can lock your keyboard even if
you haven't typed "return" yet. Conversely, we unlocked the keyboard
whenever the host user process was in TTY input wait. [There was more
to it than that, of course.]

My point is that in a "full-duplex world" those older terminals can
still be supported to a great extent by providing appropriate filters.


Rob Warnock
Systems Architecture Consultant

UUCP:	  {amdcad,fortune,sun}!redwood!rpw3
DDD:	  (415)572-2607
USPS:	  627 26th Ave, San Mateo, CA  94403