🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <354838c5.18819744@news.caverock.co.nz>,
patrick_dunford@hotmail.com.nz (Patrick Dunford) wrote:
>>Yep. Given that lynx assumes a vt100 setup IIRC, it can't do much in
>>terms of screen display, however it does at least give you access to
>>the information. I think it's a compromise that works quite well. 
>
>Does Unix have any standards for graphics?

All the major graphics standards. other than perhaps GIF and Quicktime
were developed on Unix machines, (and GIF may have been, I just
don't know for sure )

The X-terminal standard with X-Window is a portable, remotable,
display and windowing format that can even work on WinTel machines
and was developed in the late 70's - early 80's, and was in widespread
use in the mid to late eighties.

Most Unix workstations still use this standard.

>When I started using
>computers the big powerful stuff was a PDP11 with that type, or
>similar, terminals. No graphics as such.

For a start I refuse to believe you're that old, :-) 
and secondly you're wrong.  PDP11s and their predecessors
were _never_ the "big. powerful, stuff", they were always
the "mid to low range stuff". 

By the time the PDP11 was released graphics terminals
were quite common in the areas where they were needed.
Sure, by today's standards they were primitive, in fact
some even used direct beam tracing rather than
rasterization, but they did exist.

>Or to put it another way, how many people are likely to be using
>text-only clients on anything, including Unix?

All those people who still work on machines that do not support
or need graphic terminals. An example is the large
installed base of AS400s, S390s and the DEC, Unisys, and
Fuijitsu equivalents.

Up until recently, for a large number of IBM employees
the only web access they had was a green screen browser
known as "Charlotte"

-- 
Frankie