🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <12423@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> mfi@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Mark Interrante) writes:
>A question on the applicability of network window systems to do work
>from home.  More specifically, how dense is the _typical_
>communications between the host server?

GraphOn makes hi-perf graphics terminals with mice and local RasterOp
intelligence, and distributes hacks to Xlib to create a server that
will run on any BSD machine and spit GraphOn's protocol over a serial
port to their terminal.

This means that I could have, say, a GO terminal talking over a pair
of TrailBlazers doing LZ compression to a Pyramid on campus.  X
applications would run on the Pyramid or anywhere else, just as
before; it's just that the server would be running on the Pyramid,
too, rather than on the Sun on my desk.

I've wondered about how difficult it would be to do the same thing
with NeWS as with X on the GraphOn terminals.  You wouldn't have the
compactness of expression in PostScript over the slowest link (from
the server to its graphics engine), though clients would still talk PS
to the server.

One normally thinks of the server-graphics engine link as being very
fast (DMA to a frame buffer) and the client-server link as potentially
much slower (serial line or network IPC speed); perhaps turning around
those constraints would cause re-thinking of the way we view clients
and servers.

Has anybody tried any of this stuff?  The PO for our NeWS 1.1 sources
hasn't gone out yet, and I can't convince "them" to get me a GO
terminal just to play with (yet :-).  Or is there a better scheme?
-=-
 Bob Sutterfield, Department of Computer and Information Science
 The Ohio State University; 2036 Neil Ave. Columbus OH USA 43210-1277
 bob@cis.ohio-state.edu or ...!cbosgd!osu-cis!bob

In article <7797@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> bob (Bob Sutterfield) writes:
< ... Or is there a better scheme?

I think that a better scheme would involve using a micro with decent
graphics as the home side (read Macintosh (or Amiga, PC-with-wheels,
etc. if you must)).  Besides, when you wern't using it to do work over
the phone, it would still be usefull.

		-- Paul
-- 
Everything is relative...

Having a "terminal" with some processng capabilities was the intention of 
my posting.  Since I can get such processing power for under 2K (MAC, AMIGA,
CLONE).



Mark Interrante                                               CIS Department
                                                       University of Florida
Internet:  mfi@beach.cis.ufl.edu                      Gainesville, FL  32611
                                                              (904) 335-8051

In article <12423@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> mfi@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Mark Interrante) writes:

>A question on the applicability of network window systems to do work from home.
>More specifically, how dense is the _typical_ communications between the host
>server?

>For example: If I were to have a NEWS workstation at home with a 9600
>baud modem line how feasable is it for me to run applications such as
>editors, compilers, painting tools, desktop publishing etc. with the
>compute intensive processes on the mainframe and the graphics at home.
>I am not asking for specific answers or flames I am trying postulate



      The basic concepts were demonstrated with the Blit years ago.  Although
my Blit was tied into a micom switch at 9600 baud, Pike stated in his AT&T
Technical Journal article in 1984 that people at Murray Hill were running
them at home over dial up links at 1200 baud.  Obviously, it was slower,
but still quite usable


       With NeWS I would imagine you could program the server to handle
most of those applications locally, provided you have enough memory in
the server to handle them.




-- 
George W. Leach					Paradyne Corporation
{gatech,rutgers,attmail}!codas!pdn!reggie	Mail stop LF-207
Phone: (813) 530-2376				P.O. Box 2826
						Largo, FL  34649-2826