gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (02/08/88)
In article <5400018@snail> carroll@snail.CS.UIUC.EDU writes: >1. You can telnet out of a SV window. Telnet hangs in a layer. I think you must have a pretty sick implementation of layers and/or telnet. Telnet works fine for me from a layer, using either xt or pty based implementations. >2. You can have about as many SV windows as you want. Only 6 layers. 7 on the 630, plus optionally 7 more if you decide to use the second port for host access instead of a printer. A layer on the 630 can also split into sublayers, and layers that don't need host access can detach themselves, freeing the channel for use with another layer. I find in practice I seldom use the 6th layer on my DMD (5620), just as most of the Sun users I've seen have a whole pile of idle icons that they practically never access. >3. You may belittle speed, but waiting 7 or 10 minutes for layer program > to load is very irritating. I imagine it would be! However, it doesn't take 7 or 10 minutes for anything I know of to download. That would be around 500KB at 19.2KB (assuming your computer is streams-based, or otherwise good enough to push the packets at that rate), which is much larger than any DMD application I know of. Remember, the whole idea is that only the special interactive portion of an application runs in the terminal; most of the file management etc. runs on the host. The default terminal emulator (shell) takes no time at all since it's resident; typical applications take from 10 seconds to a minute at 9600 baud, but then with any planning you started the download while you were still occupied with work in another layer. If you're talking about downloading over a 1200 baud phone line, then for fairness you should consider a diskless Sun trying to use the same facilities for its Net Disk. (I don't think it's even supported.) If you think the Sun should be configured standalone (with disk), then for fairness you should consider the 630 with an attached 3B2 and disk, or some other comparable set-up. >4. Being able to icon-ify windows in SV is wonderful...I can put things that > that I don't need all the time in little icons, and grab them when they > are useful. Layer processes can also be designed to do that. I have one.. But they usually aren't, due to difference in philosophy and in operating environment. Indeed, although they appear similar, due to both having bit-mapped displays and both (typically) having a UNIX on tap, the difference in environment is quite visible to the programmer. Depending on what you want to do, one or the other might be the best fit; neither is universally superior. >5. "toolplaces" in SV : this lets me set up my windows the way I want, > without having to calculate screen positions. The .layers (or .mpxrc) file specifies initial layer windows and processes. Somehow I don't have much trouble with calculations, given that 1 inch = 100 pixels. >6. When you exit a shell in a SV window, the window closes. In layers, it > just sits there, unusable. Wrong; if you have a sensible host multiplexer ("layers" utility), termination of the host process (often, but not always, a shell) attached to a layer channel will cause the layer to be deleted, and vice-versa. >7. Support programs. The SunView support is vastly superior, such as > the icon editor, font editor, mail, etc. The DMD has had an icon editor for many years now. I admit that a font editor would be useful. There is undoubtedly some wonderful software available for either display type that is not available yet for the other. AT&T's poor marketing of the DMD did not help layers software availability. Sorry to go on at such length, but with both a Sun and a 5620 on my desk (and a 630 nearby) I thought a more balanced appraisal might be appropriate.
ron@topaz.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) (02/10/88)
Be it what it may, Doug. Telneting from a layer on the 3B2/dmd combination hangs. That's OK, you can't run cu from a 3B20 console either (it says exactly that if you try.). -Ron
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (02/11/88)
In article <17930@topaz.rutgers.edu> ron@topaz.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) writes: >Be it what it may, Doug. Telneting from a layer on the 3B2/dmd combination >hangs. Yes, in follow-up (off-line) mail, I was told of the many problems that the DMD software on the 3B2 apparently has. I don't know why in the world AT&T wouldn't do a better job than that; one gets the feeling they're not serious about selling either computers or terminals. I hope their 630 software support is better than that! Of course, as you know, BRL uses our own rendition of AT&T's DMD software, since we mostly have 4.nBSD-based systems and AT&T didn't offer a package for that environment. At least the formerly-Teletype folks have arranged for a 4.nBSD distribution for the 630 software to be available. (The work was apparently mostly done at UCSD. I was supposed to help, but due to local circumstances was unduly delayed. Eventually there will be a BRL version of the 630 software, since the UCSD one is aimed at the native Berkeley environment, whereas I do software development in the System V environment, which I much prefer.)
ekrell@hector.UUCP (Eduardo Krell) (02/11/88)
In article <7239@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes: >I hope their 630 software support is better than that! I am on a 630 right now. Host #1 is a 4.3BSD Vax; host #2 is a SVR3 3B2 (both running layers). I can telnet from a layer window on either host to any other machine and it works just fine. Is this a good enough proof?? Eduardo Krell AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ UUCP: {ihnp4,ucbvax}!ulysses!ekrell ARPA: ekrell%ulysses@att.arpa
gwyn@brl-smoke.UUCP (02/11/88)
In article <10040@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> ekrell@hector (Eduardo Krell) writes: >I am on a 630 right now. Host #1 is a 4.3BSD Vax; host #2 is a SVR3 3B2 >(both running layers). I can telnet from a layer window on either host to >any other machine and it works just fine. Is this a good enough proof?? That sounds much better, but is that software the same as the general public gets (say, with their 3B2+630), or is it more of the nifty Bell Labs internal stuff that nobody else can get hold of? Is the System V layers multiplexing converted to STREAMS yet? Does it work as well as on Ninth Edition UNIX? I would be interested in knowing...
rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) (02/11/88)
=Of course, as you know, BRL uses our own rendition of AT&T's DMD software, =since we mostly have 4.nBSD-based systems and AT&T didn't offer a package =for that environment. At least the formerly-Teletype folks have arranged =for a 4.nBSD distribution for the 630 software to be available. (... =. Eventually there will be a BRL =version of the 630 software, since the UCSD one is aimed at the native =Berkeley environment, whereas I do software development in the System V =environment, which I much prefer.) This is really funny, no? BRL wrote their own DMD package because it wouldn't run in the BSD world. Now they're glad because there will be a BSD distirbution for the 630, but BRL will be writing their own because they prefer SystemV. Can you "NIH"? :-) -- For comp.sources.unix stuff, mail to sources@uunet.uu.net.
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (02/12/88)
In article <393@fig.bbn.com> rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) writes: >This is really funny, no? BRL wrote their own DMD package because it >wouldn't run in the BSD world. Now they're glad because there will be >a BSD distirbution for the 630, but BRL will be writing their own because >they prefer SystemV. It would be nice if you would understand the situation before making (inane) comments. The DMD host software licensed by AT&T around 1984 required the addition of an "xt" pseudo-device driver to one's UNIX kernel. Unfortunately, as you should know, the internal details for how this is done vary radically between UNIX System V (the system AT&T provided a driver for) and 4BSD. This necessitated the development of an alternative approach to providing the host process multiplexer/packet protocol manager. The only portion of the AT&T DMD software that was "written" as opposed to "ported" was this multiplexer process. The result is usable from either the native BSD environment or the System V (emulated) environment, but since I do all software development in a System V environment (even on 4BSD kernels), the BRL DMD programming support was set up for the System V environment. In the case of the "Teletype 4.2BSD tape" that eventually became available for the DMD, and for the similar 630 host software package for 4.3BSD that is being made available, they chose to tailor the programming support for use with the native (4BSD) environment. Since this does not meet our local needs, it obviously will have to be redone. In any case, unless vismon, sam, etc. come with the AT&T 630 tape for 4BSD, we would have to provide them anyway. By the way, not all of BRL "prefers System V", just a subset of us, and only in certain ways (for example, it provides a much more useful C library). Generally the local technical "gurus" seem to prefer the 4BSD environment, and those producing production applications tend toward the System V one, but the choice is a complex matter (which may become unnecessary if the Sun/AT&T deal works out well).
ekrell@hector.UUCP (Eduardo Krell) (02/12/88)
In article <7248@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes: >That sounds much better, but is that software the same as the general public >gets (say, with their 3B2+630), or is it more of the nifty Bell Labs internal >stuff that nobody else can get hold of? I'm using the standard System V layers. The kernel on the 3B2 is hacked, but I didn't touch anything that has to do with layers. >Is the System V layers multiplexing converted to STREAMS yet? Does it work >as well as on Ninth Edition UNIX? I wish... it still uses the XT device driver. Eduardo Krell AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ UUCP: {ihnp4,ucbvax}!ulysses!ekrell ARPA: ekrell%ulysses@att.arpa
carroll@snail.CS.UIUC.EDU (02/12/88)
/* Written 7:40 am Feb 11, 1988 by ekrell@hector.UUCP in snail:comp.unix.questions */ /* ---------- "Re: layers vs SunView (was: Will X" ---------- */ In article <7239@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes: >I hope their 630 software support is better than that! I am on a 630 right now. Host #1 is a 4.3BSD Vax; host #2 is a SVR3 3B2 (both running layers). I can telnet from a layer window on either host to any other machine and it works just fine. Is this a good enough proof?? Eduardo Krell AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ UUCP: {ihnp4,ucbvax}!ulysses!ekrell ARPA: ekrell%ulysses@att.arpa /* End of text from snail:comp.unix.questions */ But is there any hope for the 5620's ?
muller@sdcc7.ucsd.EDU (Keith Muller) (02/15/88)
I have yet to find a utility that should have run in a 630 window and did not (on the 4.3 BSD version that is). With the under $1500 (i think) university price, the 630's are in great demand around here. Keith Muller University of California, San Diego
muller@sdcc7.ucsd.EDU (Keith Muller) (02/15/88)
the software that ATT sends out for 630's running on 4.3 based machines was designed to run on generic 4.3 machines without kernel mods. So far it seems to run with only a recompile on systems with 4.3 tty_pty.c. It is not a "version" of the sytem V source, but supports the same set of utilities with as few changes as possible. Only programs that were on the system V distribution are on the tape (except for a 4.3 version of the libwindows software: layers, libwindows.a ....). The quality of software in the 630 release is much higher than the old 5620 DMD software was. Keith Muller University of California, San Diego