Very Computer

by **Denesh Bhabu** » Thu, 30 Sep 1993 00:01:16

Hi dear Atariers,

Has anyone of you ever used Unix Windows (uw.arc, uw.tar.Z, uwREADME in a.a).
The readme file supplied goes on about Mac stuff, and I was wondering if it is
possible to use the program on the atari to access my X-Windows account from
home. Is this a X-Windows clone. Will it give a motif feel to my Atari screen
when logged on to a X-server?

Replies would be appreciated, from people who have been exposed to this.

TTFN

-Danny
--
*******************************
*
D.Bhabuta ( Dan The Man !! ) *

by **William Mag** » Thu, 30 Sep 1993 01:54:00

: Hi dear Atariers,

: Has anyone of you ever used Unix Windows (uw.arc, uw.tar.Z, uwREADME in a.a).
: The readme file supplied goes on about Mac stuff, and I was wondering if it is
: possible to use the program on the atari to access my X-Windows account from
: home. Is this a X-Windows clone. Will it give a motif feel to my Atari screen
: when logged on to a X-server?

unix windows is a simple line multiplexer. it gives you up to 7 or so
simultaneous text based sessions. It is pretty nice for home work, but
it has nothing to do with graphics or X windows. There is an atari client
for UW. I think the latest mac clients can do some tek emulation, but
I don't know at what level the atari client is. In all cases you need
to install the uw server on your host machine.
--
William Magro NeXTMail welcome

by **Kampen van** » Thu, 30 Sep 1993 02:01:52

And if you have info, I would like it too...

by **anis** » Thu, 30 Sep 1993 01:53:36

>Hi dear Atariers,

Atarians, even :-)

Quote:>Has anyone of you ever used Unix Windows (uw.arc, uw.tar.Z, uwREADME in a.a).
>The readme file supplied goes on about Mac stuff, and I was wondering if it is
>possible to use the program on the atari to access my X-Windows account from
>home. Is this a X-Windows clone. Will it give a motif feel to my Atari screen
>when logged on to a X-server?

No, I don't think that Unix Windows is an Xwindows clone or anything
like that. From what I've tried of it, the main intent of the
program is to allow a user to have multiple "windows" into a unix
system through one login. For instance, you could have say three windows
open, each at a command line. Then do different things in each
"session/window." That way you can get a lot done with one line
out (from your computer/modem to the unix box)...

I haven't tried the MAC version; the Atari ST version allows I think
7 or 10 windows; the PC version is full screen for each "window" (you
toggle full-screens to get between each); I think the Windows 3.x
version is similar to the ST's...

I believe the "server" (the part that runs on the unix box) should
work regardless of which computer you're using to access it (at least the
ones I've mention, anyways; maybe the Amiga as well if they have the
UW front end)...

A slightly easier way to get multiple sessions (although this
isn't as fancy as UnixWindows) is to get "Screen" which lets anyone with
a VT100 (ANSI?) emulator to toggle between sessions/windows...

As for Xwindows clones, I dunno. (a question from me to the net:
how does MGR compare to Xwindows in terms of purpose, features, etc?)

"what do deer think when they're staring into the headlights of an
oncoming car?"

"hmmm, is that a Buick?"...

-some standup comedian I can't think of...

by **jasz** » Fri, 01 Oct 1993 02:38:09

>Hi dear Atariers,

>Has anyone of you ever used Unix Windows (uw.arc, uw.tar.Z, uwREADME in a.a).
>The readme file supplied goes on about Mac stuff, and I was wondering if it is
>possible to use the program on the atari to access my X-Windows account from
>home. Is this a X-Windows clone. Will it give a motif feel to my Atari screen
>when logged on to a X-server?

>Replies would be appreciated, from people who have been exposed to this.

>TTFN

>-Danny

uw is definitely not x windows. uw just multiplexes terminals over a serial
line. in other words, you'll have multiple gem windows on your ST showing
output from multiple unix shells running on the remote machine. this
works very well, especially at higher speeds (9600+), but you can't run
things like xclock or xload, xv, etc... for that, you would really need to
be connected through an ethernet network. i suppose it could be done
with slip and xserver software (I heard it exists...), but it would be slow!

--Bart

by **Uwe Seim** » Fri, 01 Oct 1993 03:37:13

>things like xclock or xload, xv, etc... for that, you would really need to
>be connected through an ethernet network. i suppose it could be done
>with slip and xserver software (I heard it exists...), but it would be slow!

Yes, you're perfectly right. I tried it with a 14400 baud connection using
not slip but term. It's really slow and only makes sense with X programs that
don't change the appearance of their windows too often.

***************************************
* Uwe Seimet *

*-------------------------------------*
* I really hate this damned machine, *
* I wish that they would sell it. *
* It never does that what I mean *
* but only what I tell it. *
***************************************

by **Ballintijn** » Fri, 01 Oct 1993 05:08:32

>works very well, especially at higher speeds (9600+), but you can't run
>things like xclock or xload, xv, etc... for that, you would really need to
>be connected through an ethernet network. i suppose it could be done
>with slip and xserver software (I heard it exists...), but it would be slow!

You don't need an ethernet connect or slip, you definetly do need an Xserver
(what else is gonna show the stuff on your screen). And you need also someway
of redirecting the remote X-socket to a local X-socket. This can be done by
the program 'term' which is distributed with Linux packages.

So, if there is an Xserver working under MiNT (I would like that), then the
packages could in no time be ported. You have then effectively created your
own X-terminal. Ofcourse running X-programs locally is out of the question
(well feasiable for the Falcon/TT), they are too huge!

Greetings,
Gerco.

PS: Yes, term is slow!
--

+---------------------+----------------------+--------------------------------+
| And may the source |GC Ballintijn | Whatever you did, don't worry, |

by **Ballintijn** » Fri, 01 Oct 1993 05:16:45

>works very well, especially at higher speeds (9600+), but you can't run
>things like xclock or xload, xv, etc... for that, you would really need to
>be connected through an ethernet network. i suppose it could be done
>with slip and xserver software (I heard it exists...), but it would be slow!

You don't need an ethernet connect or slip, you definetly do need an Xserver
(what else is gonna show the stuff on your screen). And you need also someway
of redirecting the remote X-socket to a local X-socket. This can be done by
the program 'term' which is distributed with Linux packages.

So, if there is an Xserver working under MiNT (I would like that), then the
packages could in no time be ported. You have then effectively created your
own X-terminal. Ofcourse running X-programs locally is out of the question
(well feasiable for the Falcon/TT), they are too huge!

Greetings,
Gerco.

PS: Yes, term is slow!
--

+---------------------+----------------------+--------------------------------+
| And may the source |GC Ballintijn | Whatever you did, don't worry, |

by **jasz** » Fri, 01 Oct 1993 09:02:56

>[blah blah] Ofcourse running X-programs locally is out of the question
>(well feasiable for the Falcon/TT), they are too huge!

well, if someone ports real unix over to the ST, that'll be great...
i've worked on HP 9000/320 workstations which run on a 68020 and /340
(68030's), and they're quite acceptable workstations... so, i think it's
entirely possible to run Unix and X on all ST's... (well, maybe the
68000's would have to be accelerated)... the problem would be the small
screen...

Quote:>Greetings,
> Gerco.

--Bart

Quote:>PS: Yes, term is slow!

i believe you...

by **Urs Thuerma** » Fri, 01 Oct 1993 09:36:53

> well, if someone ports real unix over to the ST, that'll be great...
>i've worked on HP 9000/320 workstations which run on a 68020 and /340
>(68030's), and they're quite acceptable workstations... so, i think it's
>entirely possible to run Unix and X on all ST's... (well, maybe the
>68000's would have to be accelerated)... the problem would be the small
>screen...

No, the problem would be that the ST has no mmu (no real mmu), which
can map logical to physical addresses and protect memory from unwanted
access.

Urs

by **Kendall Helmstetter Geln** » Fri, 01 Oct 1993 14:55:58

> well, if someone ports real unix over to the ST, that'll be great...
>i've worked on HP 9000/320 workstations which run on a 68020 and /340
>(68030's), and they're quite acceptable workstations... so, i think it's
>entirely possible to run Unix and X on all ST's... (well, maybe the
>68000's would have to be accelerated)... the problem would be the small
>screen...

No, the problem would be that the ST has no mmu (no real mmu), which
can map logical to physical addresses and protect memory from unwanted
access.

Not a problem for TT's and Falcon's, which can do both these things.
And have a larger screen area..

--

by **Uwe Seim** » Fri, 01 Oct 1993 20:19:37

>(68030's), and they're quite acceptable workstations... so, i think it's
>entirely possible to run Unix and X on all ST's... (well, maybe the

This makes no sense. For a real Unix you need virtual memory, i.e. you need
an 68030 or higher. So the ST isn't of any use.

***************************************
* Uwe Seimet *

*-------------------------------------*
* I really hate this damned machine, *
* I wish that they would sell it. *
* It never does that what I mean *
* but only what I tell it. *
***************************************

by **jasz** » Sat, 02 Oct 1993 05:39:13

>> well, if someone ports real unix over to the ST, that'll be great...
>>i've worked on HP 9000/320 workstations which run on a 68020 and /340
>>(68030's), and they're quite acceptable workstations... so, i think it's
>>entirely possible to run Unix and X on all ST's... (well, maybe the
>>68000's would have to be accelerated)... the problem would be the small
>>screen...

>No, the problem would be that the ST has no mmu (no real mmu), which
>can map logical to physical addresses and protect memory from unwanted
>access.

>Urs

I don't see why programs wouldn't run without memory protection..??

--Bart

by **Klamer Schut** » Sat, 02 Oct 1993 16:23:47

>>>> Discussion about running UNIX on a ST. <<<<

Quote:}>No, the problem would be that the ST has no mmu (no real mmu), which
}>can map logical to physical addresses and protect memory from unwanted
}>access.
} I don't see why programs wouldn't run without memory protection..??

The problem is no the memory protection (although handy during debugging)
but the impossibility to implement paging. And shared libraries also are
quite difficult without an mmu. And a auto resizing stack. And...

Klamer
--
Klamer Schutte Tel: +31-53-892778 Fax: +31-53-340045
Dept. of Electrical Engineering -- University of Twente, The Netherlands

by **Ballintijn** » Sun, 03 Oct 1993 01:16:56

>>No, the problem would be that the ST has no mmu (no real mmu), which
>>can map logical to physical addresses and protect memory from unwanted
>>access.

>>Urs
> I don't see why programs wouldn't run without memory protection..??

Well, technicaly a UN*X box memory protection or virtual memory. And vm is
only needed when running lots of progs. You need however memory protection
for very practical reason --> programs crashes. It is not uncommon for
pointers to point to unknown location. And according to murphy these would
point to some very crushial variable. So, although you don't really need it
(see minix for the ST), you don't want to do without it. Much more important
is some sort of realocation of running programs. Atari progs can't be
relocated after they are relocated, and this is needed for something like
fork() according to the UN*X semantics.

Gerco.

--
+---------------------+----------------------+--------------------------------+
| And may the source |GC Ballintijn | Whatever you did, don't worry, |

+---------------------+----------------------+--------------------------------+

Very Computer

Unix Windows -- X Windows?

Unix Windows -- X Windows?

Unix Windows -- X Windows?

Unix Windows -- X Windows?

Unix Windows -- X Windows?

Unix Windows -- X Windows?

Unix Windows -- X Windows?

Unix Windows -- X Windows?

Unix Windows -- X Windows?

Unix Windows -- X Windows?

Unix Windows -- X Windows?

Unix Windows -- X Windows?

Unix Windows -- X Windows?

Unix Windows -- X Windows?

Unix Windows -- X Windows?

Unix Windows -- X Windows?