Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!apple!mas!jdn
From: jdn@mas.UUCP (Jeff Nisewanger)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: -host option (was Re: NeXT alternatives)
Message-ID: <1780@mas1.mas.UUCP>
Date: 12 Apr 89 22:32:16 GMT
References: <12192@reed.UUCP> <245300010@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> <688@garcon.cso.uiuc.edu> <BOB.89Mar30124012@allosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu> <41358@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> <8277@polya.Stanford.EDU> <4683@umd5.umd.edu> <4688@pt.cs.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: jdn@mas1.UUCP (Jeff Nisewanger)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Measurex Automation Systems, Cupertino, CA
Lines: 16

In article <4683@umd5.umd.edu> feldman@umd5.umd.edu (Mark Feldman) writes:
>In article <8277@polya.Stanford.EDU> aozer@NeXT.com writes:
>	While the visual part of the interface appears on the target
>	machine, sounds are produced on the source machine (I assume that
>	all DSP-related action run on the source machine).

	In 0.8 sound is done through /dev/sound0. I thought I heard
that in 0.9 (?) sound could be done through a Mach port instead of
a /dev entry. I was figuring one of the reasons for this was so sound
could be done across the network using the Mach port just like the
Mach port being used for the NeXT window system. Is this something that just
isn't ready yet or is there a reason why this wouldn't work?

	Jeff Nisewanger
	Measurex Automation Systems
	....apple!mas1!jdn