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 ]