phil@scubed.UUCP (02/19/87)
References: I recently posted here asking about the availability of uw for the Amiga. This is a summary of what I learned. Some of you asked me, "What is uw?" Well, uw is a multi-window terminal emulator for the Mac and Unix. It gives you multiple virtual ttys all active simultaniously. It also provides file transfer and Tektronics emulation. It is a very nice program and I would like to see it ported to the Amiga. Some of you have offered to turn over to me preliminary work that you have done on this, as long as I prommise to keep it all public domain. No problem... I may take you up on your offer. Mitsu said that it has been done. Is this true? I don't have time to reinvent the wheel. If it is available, how do I get it? Fred Fish, are you there?? Anyone that knows for sure that uw has been ported to the Amiga, PLEASE send me mail. If I do not get back a definite yes on this question, I will be contacting those of you who have started the project and discuss how I can assist in completing it. Thanks to all those who responded to my first posting! -- Phil Cohen (phil@scubed.arpa, sdcsvax!phil)
ugmiker@cs.buffalo.EDU (Michael Reilly) (10/13/87)
Hi, I was hacking around my fish disks (thanks fred) the
other night, and came across "UW". I had remembered a conversa-
tion about it on the net, and tried to get it to work. After
asking the "UNIX" (the quotes are there to show disbelief in
thier title :-) ) I found out that "UNIX WINDOWS" was something
like Xwindows, and one of them had "heard" of it and it was sup-
posed to be great, but he/they seemed to loose it, when they
brought up 4.3bsd( incompetency at it's very best :-> ).
Well, I found someone else who (I guess) was hacking on it
with the mac(ugh!!) and copied the unix executable for uw and
uwtools, and it seems to work fine, but no VT100 compatibility,
and no vi(unless I am overlooking someway or doing it). MY ques-
tion is , has anyone hacked UW on the amiga to run a vt100 compa-
tible, or does anyone know how hard it would be to put UW on top
of vt100, like the tek4014 emulator????(now that would be nice,
three, or four vt100 screens,and a tek4014 screen just waiting...
:-) )
I would also be very appreciative of ANY information you
could give me about "UW"...
T'anks....
Mike(r)
P.S. Talking about tanks, where can I get the frontline people
have been talking about??? sounds cool....
DISCALIMER---- I DISCLAIM EVERYTHING....EVEN MY DISCLAIMER.....
Mike Reilly
University of Buffalo Computer Science
csnet: ugmiker@buffalo.CSNET
uucp: ..!{nike|watmath,alegra,decvax}!sunybcs!ugmiker
BITNET: ugmiker@sunybcs.BITNET <-OR-> ACSCMPR@ubvmsc.BITNETwillis@auvax.UUCP (Tony Willis) (12/10/87)
This recent discussion on Unix windows got me interested in seeing
it in action. I found that some of the local gurus already have a
version running on their atari sts! Help, I don't want to be left
behind. Could some kind soul please e-mail me a copy of the docs +
a binary version for the amiga? (I know they're on Fish disk 79
but it would probably take me a month or so to get a copy of that
via my local amiga users group and I'm eager!) Thanks!
Tony Willis
Athabasca University ...{ubc-vision,ihnp4}!alberta!auvax!willis uucp
Box 10,000 usercdir@ualtamts BITNET
Athabasca, Alberta TOG 2R0
Canada (403) 675-6221 CRONEJP@UREGINA1.BITNET (Jonathan Crone) (02/02/88)
Does anyone have a Server source for Unix Windows to run on a Sys V machine???? The Comp.binaries.amiga posting only had a version for BSD..... unfortunately the maching that i have access to to RUN UW on has SyS V therefore PLEASE SOMEONE either Post a sys V server, or mail me... Jonathan Crone I can be gotten at ......rutgers!mimsy!uunet!mcl!cronejp <------ Prefered.... or <CRONEJP@UREGINA1.BITNET> <----- almost as good as mcl.... <CRONEJP@UREGINAV.BITNET>
rlcarr@athena.mit.edu (Richard L. Carreiro) (02/18/88)
Hello, What exactly do I need to implememt Unix Windows? I assume I need uw for both the host and the Amiga. Then what? Is the Amiga UW the terminal I use? Or do I use any term prog, or what? I'm quite a bit confused on this, as you might have noticed. Thanks in advance for any help, ****************************************************************************** * Richard L. Carreiro GO CELTS! * "He gets it out deep and * * rlcarr@athena.mit.edu * HAVLICEK STEALS IT!!" - J. Most * ******************************************************************************
rminnich@udel.EDU (Ron Minnich) (02/18/88)
In article <2999@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> rlcarr@athena.mit.edu (Richard L. Carreiro) writes: >Hello, > What exactly do I need to implememt Unix Windows? I assume I need For all of you thinking about uw, ... I would STRONGLY recommend that you bag uw and move on over to DNET. DNET is uw done right for the amiga, more or less, in that it really uses the amiga multitasking in a way that uw could not (because uw was written for the MAC- need i say more?). DNET allows amiga processes to talk to Unix processes, whereas uw wires amiga windows to unix processes. Plus, uw is limited to seven, dnet to 65536 connections. A big difference. I have used uw, and if i did not have amigatcp in the works, i would toss uw and go to dnet in an instant. And i may toss amigatcp yet, the way my spare time is working out ... -- ron (rminnich@udel.edu)
darin@laic.UUCP (Darin Johnson) (02/19/88)
In article <1144@louie.udel.EDU>, rminnich@udel.EDU (Ron Minnich) writes: > For all of you thinking about uw, ... > I would STRONGLY recommend that you bag uw and move on over > to DNET. Just where is DNET. I haven't heard much at all about it and it has not been posted here. > DNET allows amiga processes to > talk to Unix processes, whereas uw wires amiga windows to unix processes. > ron (rminnich@udel.edu) How hard is it to port to a non-unix environment (VMS)? Or is it hardwired to pty's, pipes, etc.
john13@garfield.UUCP (John Russell) (02/21/88)
In article <1144@louie.udel.EDU> rminnich@udel.EDU (Ron Minnich) writes: >> What exactly do I need to implememt Unix Windows? I assume I need >For all of you thinking about uw, ... >I would STRONGLY recommend that you bag uw and move on over >to DNET. DNET is uw done right for the amiga, more or less, in >that it really uses the amiga multitasking in a way that uw could not This is the first I've ever heard of DNET. I'm assuming it's PD, is it easily available (ie via the sources/binaries groups or e-mail)? Forgive me if it's already been posted, we've missed about a month's worth of news here. John -- "Fanaticism is all right... as long as you're ALONE! HAHAHAHA!" -- Pat Robertson shares a gem of wisdom told to him by Richard Nixon, and thus becomes the first politician to whom I can honestly apply the term "scares the willies out of me"
peter@nuchat.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (02/21/88)
In article ... rminnich@udel.EDU (Ron Minnich) writes: > I would STRONGLY recommend that you bag uw and move on over > to DNET. > A big difference. I have used uw, and if i did not have amigatcp in the works, UW! DNET! AMIGATCP! MAX ELBOWROOM! ARGH! I'm Wembling! I'm Wembling! Quick... someone give me a standard... Oh, right, I've got one. I probably won't get to use any of these programs. System V: From now on, consider it substandard. Any of these programs come with SysV hosts? -- -- a clone of Peter (have you hugged your wolf today) da Silva `-_-' -- normally ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter U -- Disclaimer: These aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.
rminnich@udel.EDU (Ron Minnich) (03/17/88)
In article <4500@garfield.UUCP> john13@garfield.UUCP (John Russell) writes: >In article <1144@louie.udel.EDU> rminnich@udel.EDU (Ron Minnich) writes: >>For all of you thinking about uw, ... >>I would STRONGLY recommend that you bag uw and move on over >>to DNET. DNET is uw done right for the amiga, more or less, in >>that it really uses the amiga multitasking in a way that uw could not > >This is the first I've ever heard of DNET. I'm assuming it's PD, is it easily >available (ie via the sources/binaries groups or e-mail)? You can ftp it from berkeley.edu. Get amiga/dnet.*.tar and away you go. Now before i forget i just wanted to let they guy who ported uw to the amiga know that i think he did a real nice job, and i was not criticising his port of uw. The problem with uw is not the port on the amiga, it is the protocol itself, which is limited to seven channels, and not easily changed. Dnet has more room for growth. But, yes, uw was nice in its time, and, dnet is a better protocol. ron -- ron (rminnich@udel.edu)