From: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!C70:editor-people Newsgroups: fa.editor-p Title: Re: ^S/^Q but not DTR Article-I.D.: ucb.1395 Posted: Sun Jun 20 01:12:04 1982 Received: Tue Jun 22 01:08:31 1982 >From POURNE@MIT-MC Sun Jun 20 01:09:53 1982 Excuse me, I thought that "ideal" specs were PRECISELY the domain of this discussion. I freely admit I know damned little about hardware, and probably not as much as I think I do about software; what I do have is (1) a hell of a lot of experience USING these machines to create both text and programs--I probably have done as much pounding on keyboards as anyone you know, certainly as much as most students you know--and (2) the ability to explain things to people once I understand them. I also know many of the movers and shakers in the micro part of the computer industry, and I would LOVE to have "ideal" stuff to discuss with them; who knows, it might end up being built by Godbout or Morrow. My apologies for my ignorance of the limits of DTR as a means of communicating bettween terminal and computer. Some people who know far more than I do about it seem to use it with success, and even to believe that the other protocols are out-dated. Obviously that view is not universal. On the other hand, the view that DTR is somehow more advanced and preferable to Xon Xoff etc is not, I think, contemptible. I would be very interested in knowing what is the "best" way of accomplishing this task, although perhaps it is not relevent to editor-people. Perhaps, though, it is: since we are, I thought, trying to work on future systems incorporating what all of us would like to have... [Editor's note: personally, I don't think that further XON/XOFF discussion is appropriate to editor-people at this time; we seem to have covered most of the important issues. Perhaps the discussion should move to some other digest as it moves into the realm of hardware interface and out of human interface. /JQJ ]