uucp and other unix stuff on a pc

[Greg A. Woods]

In article <13111 at netcom.UUCP> ergo at netcom.uucp writes:
> As I see it, the big problem is that Unix software is still living in
> 1978, when almost everybody used a terminal, a special-purpose machine
> with little smarts beyond cursor addressing and efficient screen updating.

I certainly wouldn't go that far.  In fact, you'd better be awful
careful about just what you call "UNIX" software.

> Why should a Unix system assume my system can only do one thing at a
> time?  Right now, I read news by browsing a list of messages, *one*
> screen at a time, picking the ones I want to see, whereupon the
> newsreader (nn in my case) sends them two me, *one* screen at a time.

It doesn't.

> This requires:  clever new transmission protocols; clever new
> application design; multitasking -- but all of it's *quite* feasible
> if anybody's got the skill (no problem there) and imagination
> (well...)

NO, it certainly doesn't.  There are many current standard or de-facto
standard protocols and designs currently in use:

	The X-Window System - many versions for various "PC"'s.
	Layers - no available versions for any "PC"'s.
	Various other products - mostly for Mac's.

There are X implementations for several "PC"'s, such as IBM-PC's
Mac's, etc.  I believe some even support SLIP, and would work
reasonably well with high speed modems (such as Telebit's).  For local
workstations, high speed LAN's can be used.

However, the best solution, especially for those limited by slower
communications lines, is layers, also known as the SysV Windowing
System.  This very elegant system has been in use by AT&T on various
"smart" terminals (jerq, blit, 5620-DMD, 615, 630, 705, 730, etc.) for
quite a few years.  It comes standard (as an operating environment) on
all true System V ports (some vendors, such as ISC did not provide
layers).  Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that the IBM-PC version of
layers ever made it out of the Labs.

Never-the-less, such an implementation should not be too hard for
MS-DOS, or the Mac, Amiga, Atari, etc.  With a full "PC" at your
disposal, as with some of the smarter terminals mentioned above, a
full development system could be provided, such that layers
applications could be ported to such an implementation.  However,
unlike with the terminals, a PC, with a built-in disk drive, would not
need to have such applications stored on the host and downloaded to
the PC.  In fact development of such applications could be done
entirely on the PC, again unlike on the terminals where the host must
provide a complete development system.  [However, I would still prefer
to do development work on a UNIX system, where all the proper tools
are available in an integrated environment.]
-- 
						Greg A. Woods

woods@{eci386,gate,robohack,ontmoh,tmsoft}.UUCP
+1-416-443-1734 [h]  +1-416-595-5425 [w]    VE3-TCP	Toronto, Ontario CANADA