From: sdw@lig.net (Stephen D. Williams)
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 94 15:07:41 PST
To: shamrock@netcom.com (Lucky Green)
Subject: Re: "Any of the mailers that you can use on a shell are oxen"
In-Reply-To: <v01510102ab16f250e193@[192.0.2.1]>
Message-ID: <m0rJ3c5-0009svC@sdwsys>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


> 
> L. Futplex McCarthy wrote:
...
> There can be no other lasting solution but to abandon VTwhatever in favor
> of bitmaped output devices. Since running X over a dial-up connection is

Have you ever done it?  It isn't too bad.  Especially if you are
running well-behaved apps (most are) that aren't too graphical.
Really only large images are a problem.

Oddly, I've even seen better performance with xterm shells than telnet
through a firewall.

I haven't even seen the new version of X over slip protocol compression.

> rather inefficient, and considering the significant computing power of the
> PC's that are now being underused as dumb terminals, processing the data
> locally seems to be a sensible solution.
> 
I agree.
> 
> -- Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com>
>    PGP encrypted mail preferred.

sdw
-- 
Stephen D. Williams    25Feb1965 VW,OH      sdw@lig.net http://www.lig.net/~sdw
Senior Consultant      510.503.9227 CA Page 513.496.5223 OH Page BA Aug94-Dec95
OO R&D AI:NN/ES crypto     By Buggy: 2464 Rosina Dr., Miamisburg, OH 45342-6430
Firewalls/WWW servers ICBM: 39 38 34N 84 17 12W home, 37 58 41N 122 01 48W work
Pres.: Concinnous Consulting,Inc.;SDW Systems;Local Internet Gateway Co.29Nov94