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!