Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ukma!david From: david@ms.uky.edu (David Herron -- One of the vertebrae) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans Subject: Re: Terminal servers over ethernet? Message-ID: <9848@e.ms.uky.edu> Date: 5 Jul 88 20:55:48 GMT References: <320@ucrmath.UUCP><3960@saturn.ucsc.edu> <9816@e.ms.uky.edu> <23612@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Reply-To: david@ms.uky.edu (David Herron -- One of the vertebrae) Organization: U of Kentucky, Mathematical Sciences Lines: 25 In article <23612@bu-cs.BU.EDU> kwe@buit13.bu.edu (Kent England) writes: >In article <9816@e.ms.uky.edu> david@ms.uky.edu (David Herron E-Mail Hack) writes: >>Be that as it may. Do any of these boxes sufficiently emulate >>being hardwired that one can believe that they're hardwired? >With one very important difference. A truly hardwired device may be >able to operate without benefit of flow control of any kind. A >networked terminal, in my experience, must always support flow >control, even at speeds as low as 1200 bps. I agree completely. Let me add that in my experience that most manufacturers assume that ^S/^Q flow control is enough. But that ^S/^Q is often WORSE than no flow control. The fact that I like Emacs is not an issue as I'm a relatively recent convert to that way of life, and the experiences I have about ^S/^Q predate my conversion to Emacs. ^S/^Q gets in the way too much. You can't run a file transfer protocol like UUCP or ?MODEM through such a line. You have constant problems with strange "lockups" on such lines, if a ^S happens at the right moment. etc. -- <---- David Herron -- The E-Mail guy <---- ska: David le casse\*' {rutgers,uunet}!ukma!david, david@UKMA.BITNET <---- <---- I'm not bad, I'm just coded that way!