warbob.rice%Rand-Relay@sri-unix.UUCP (08/13/83)
From: Bob.Warfield <warbob.rice@Rand-Relay> The Blit is *NOT* an appropriate solution to the problem of providing windows for Unix. It is *HARDWARE* limited in the number of windows it supports. The versions I've heard about actually use a separate RS232 line for each window. Furthermore, there is no icon support. I realize everybody doesn't like icons, but I do, and I think each user should be given the choice. This is easy to do, since most icons can be replaced by a box containing text ala VisiOn. Bob Warfield
ron%brl-bmd@sri-unix.UUCP (08/17/83)
From: Ron Natalie <ron@brl-bmd> First, I hope Warren Wake's request for the graphics terminal was a joke. Second, I don't know what you were looking at, but your statements about the blit are not correct. The BLIT uses a single multiplexed serial line that talks to a special driver in the UNIX system. There is no hardware limitation on the number of windows as there is no hardware support for windows at all. The whole thing does what ever you tell it to do when you load the control program into the 68000 inside it. I like software because hardware has limitations, software does not. It's too bad that Turing machines are so bad at I/O. -Ron
djb@Berkeley@cbosgd.UUCP (08/17/83)
From: cbosgd!djb@Berkeley (David J. Bryant) I don't know where Bob Warfield (warbob%rice.Rice@Rand-Relay) got his information, but it is very, very wrong. The blit (and when I say blit I also mean the Teletype 5620) is not hardware limited in the number of windows that can be supported. It does not, and never has used a separate RS232 line for each window. The multiplexing is done over a single RS232 port by special programs that run in the terminal and the host. You can run as many windows as you want, and over a single terminal-host RS232 connection, although having way too many is not a good idea (you can exhaust the memory available for window management, but it takes lots of overlapped window area to do this). Further, there most certainly is icon support. You can design your own icons as bitmaps, and manipulate them all over the screen. Quite a lot of the blit programs (cip, for example, and anything that uses the mouse) make good use of icons for a wide variety of applications. It's very easy to do. David Bryant Bell Labs Columbus, OH (614) 860-4516 (cbosg!djb)
laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (08/19/83)
It sounds like you just need a better Blit. laura creighton (I think that Blits are the way to go) utzoo!utcsstat!laura
bjb@whuxlb.UUCP (08/20/83)
#R:sri-arpa:-426600:whuxlb:20600001:000:1679 whuxlb!bjb Aug 19 20:56:00 1983 I am not involved in "5620" (the product that sprung from the blit) development, but I do have a blit and feel that the previous article was rather a large bit of mis-information. The Blit is *NOT* an appropriate solution to the problem of providing windows for Unix. It is *HARDWARE* limited in the number of windows it supports. The blit is NOT hardware limited to the number of windows (7) that it supports. The blit driver, internal software and packet format limit the number of windows. I have been told by a "very reliable" source that this problem is easily resolved by using some unused bits in the packet. The versions I've heard about actually use a separate RS232 line for each window. Not only untrue, but silly. I wonder if the author of the original article is really talking about a blit at all. The blit has one serial port ONLY! It has no other i/o other then the keyboard. The 5620 will have two serial and one parallel port. Furthermore, there is no icon support. I realize everybody doesn't like icons, but I do, and I think each user should be given the choice. This is easy to do, since most icons can be replaced by a box containing text ala VisiOn. Again completely false. The blit has very good icon support. Programs running in the blit can easily load or change icons. Extensive use of icons is made by the programs that come with the blit. The blit (I am not sure about the 5620) even has a icon editor. The 5620 dot-mapped-display terminal was shown at usenix. Each of the assertions made by the author of the previous article would be obviously and patently untrue to anyone who saw it there. B. Beare ...!whuxlb!bjb