Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!uwvax!dogie.macc.wisc.edu!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!leah!rpi!rpi.edu!deven From: deven@rpi.edu (Deven Corzine) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: uw Message-ID: Date: 31 May 89 12:09:55 GMT References: <50125@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> <363@xdos.UUCP> Sender: usenet@rpi.edu Organization: RPI Public Access Workstation Lab, Troy NY Lines: 81 In-reply-to: doug@xdos.UUCP's message of 31 May 89 01:32:34 GMT In article <363@xdos.UUCP> doug@xdos.UUCP (Doug Merritt) writes: In article deven@rpi.edu (Deven Corzine) writes: >Check out the vt220 emulator called meshugena. It supports uw. I don't know about you, but personally, I would fear for my life to use a program called "meshugena"!!! Stupid name, but I'm not the author. You must be daring. Living on the edge. A man of action and adventure. Wow. That must be it. Perhaps you'd like me to mail you this program I found on a BBS, called "Neo-Nazi Brain Crushing Hate Filled Virus Buster"? I don't know what it does but I'm sure it must be something interesting! :-) :-) No thanks. I had VirusX running when I used meshugena, (about 8-10 months ago) and it passed. No other signs of virii (?) either. On the other hand, we got this neat new demo program from somewhere in Europe which had some truly impressive text manilplations and graphics, all while trashing any disk it could get at! (of course, it could only get at the ramdisks... oh well!) Despite the obvious virus, it WAS neat to watch... just remember to cold boot afterward. :-) >DNet is FAR superior to uw... Hmmm, that's a pretty strong recommendation. I guess I'm going to have to try it out. (I'd worry about the source of the recommendation, considering the above, except I know Matt Dillon wrote it :-) Damn right it's a strong recommendation, and with good reason. If you can get it running, you'll be FAR FAR happier using DNet than uw to connect to a Unix machine. You can have multiple windows as with uw, but the mechanism is more general, the protocol is error-correcting, the switching between windows is smoother than uw's, and simultaneous output in multiple windows works perfectly well. So, simply for multiple windows, you're better off with DNet. To be fair, meshugena *does* have scrollbars and stuff... it makes a very good terminal, but that's all it is. A very good terminal. There is absolutely NO support for file transfer. No ASCII capture or send, no XModem transfers, nothing. Simply a terminal. But with scrollbars and multiple windows under uw. And the windows iconify. It's also rather large. (142K, with its fonts and such) If you want your Amiga to be an extended remix of a vt220 (which is a nice terminal, to be sure) then meshugena is good. But that's all you'll get. DNet also supports *reliable* transmission of *binary* files (or full directory trees, even) at a high throughput (~2200 baud on a 2400 baud modem, vs. ~600 baud throughput for Kermit over the same modem) AT THE SAME TIME AS MULTIPLEXING TERMINAL WINDOW STREAMS. You can read news and download files simultaneously. True, the juxtaposition will slow both your reading and the file transfer, but you spend a lot more time reading than the transfer (of the text to be read) takes, and the remaining bandwidth of the modem is used for the file transfer in progress. This feature alone can be worth its weight in gold. No need to start a transfer and go find lunch... Yes, it is an absolute bitch to get DNet to run properly, and often impossible. Matt could have put some effort into making it more forgiving of points of nontransparency in the data stream. DNet's absolute *requirement* for a true 8-bit data path (don't count on getting away with even something as close as TELNET) prevents many people from using it. Ah, well... I can run it, so I'm happy. :-) Well, sort of. Deven -- shadow@[128.113.10.2] Deven T. Corzine (518) 272-5847 shadow@[128.113.10.201] 2346 15th St. Pi-Rho America deven@rpitsmts.bitnet Troy, NY 12180-2306 <> "Simple things should be simple and complex things should be possible." - A.K.