Through an X-window, darkly
David Neal
it would seem to get maximum benefit from the hyper-environs
you need to run X-Mosiac.
<music:/sugar.neosoft.com/u/dneal/sounds/violins_and_weeping.ulaw>
As a computer consultant, my access to the internet varies
from client to client. Some have full-blown internet access,
others hide behind uucp firewalls and never route a net.packet.
So, to the chase, is there an x-mosaic client server somewhere
on the net? I.e. can I telnet somewhere and login as xmosiac,
and then give it a display of "davesdisplay.neosoft.com:0.0"?
Intense waste of bandwidth, perhaps. My only option? For now.
--
David Neal. <dn...@neosoft.com> "I don't have a lot of dead bodies laying
around here or dead children from an airplane explosion that we haven't been
able to solve -- yet." James Kallstrom, FBI, in defense of Clipper/Capstone
Marc Andreessen
Neal) writes:
As a computer consultant, my access to the internet varies
from client to client. Some have full-blown internet access,
others hide behind uucp firewalls and never route a net.packet.
So, to the chase, is there an x-mosaic client server somewhere
on the net? I.e. can I telnet somewhere and login as xmosiac,
and then give it a display of "davesdisplay.neosoft.com:0.0"?
How would this help? If you're behind a good firewall you certainly
won't be able to receive an X window stream.
Marc
--
Marc Andreessen
Software Development Group
National Center for Supercomputing Applications
ma...@ncsa.uiuc.edu
David Neal
>In article <C7yEq...@sugar.NeoSoft.COM> dn...@NeoSoft.com (David
>Neal) writes:
>
>
> So, to the chase, is there an x-mosaic client server somewhere
> on the net? I.e. can I telnet somewhere and login as xmosiac,
> and then give it a display of "davesdisplay.neosoft.com:0.0"?
>
>How would this help? If you're behind a good firewall you certainly
>won't be able to receive an X window stream.
>
Well, I left out tons of needless details, but if you insist...
neosoft is not a client of mine, it's a public access system.
Its running a really bletcherous 386ix to which it is difficult
to port mainstream code. Even so, I can upgrade from tty dialup
access to sl/ip access for another $100 a month, and appear
as a node connected to neosoft's net (or as my own subnet).
Having done that, I could indeed run an x-server on my sl/ip
target node, and viola, I'm in need of one client server.
Why, you ask, if I can run an x-server on my local node, do
I wish to have a remote x-mosiac client? Because the x-server
would be running on a pc. A pc running dos. You know I should
run unix, I know I should run unix, my pc knows I should unix.
Someone please tell me wallet. he's not cooperating. :-)
There you have it.
>Marc
>
>--
>Marc Andreessen
>Software Development Group
>National Center for Supercomputing Applications
>ma...@ncsa.uiuc.edu
Eric Johnson
>In article <MARCA.93J...@wintermu.ncsa.uiuc.edu> ma...@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Marc Andreessen) writes:
>>In article <C7yEq...@sugar.NeoSoft.COM> dn...@NeoSoft.com (David
>>Neal) writes:
>>
>>
>> So, to the chase, is there an x-mosaic client server somewhere
>> on the net? I.e. can I telnet somewhere and login as xmosiac,
>> and then give it a display of "davesdisplay.neosoft.com:0.0"?
>>
>>How would this help? If you're behind a good firewall you certainly
>>won't be able to receive an X window stream.
>>
>
>Well, I left out tons of needless details, but if you insist...
[...]
>would be running on a pc. A pc running dos. You know I should
>run unix, I know I should run unix, my pc knows I should unix.
>Someone please tell me wallet. he's not cooperating. :-)
Linux, or 386bsd. Tell your wallet to relax.
--Eric
Tim Berners-Lee
writes:
> Why, you ask, if I can run an x-server on my local node, do
> I wish to have a remote x-mosiac client? Because the x-server
> would be running on a pc. A pc running dos. You know I should
> run unix, I know I should run unix, my pc knows I should unix.
> Someone please tell me wallet. he's not cooperating. :-)
What you need is a native Windows client, not a remote X session.
Much easier to set up, once you have the SLIP line. We expect
Tom Bruce to release Cello for windows in a month or so and
there are rumours of Mosaic for Windows in the ?fall?.
Tim BL
Michael W Knowles
>
>What you need is a native Windows client, not a remote X session.
>Much easier to set up, once you have the SLIP line. We expect
>Tom Bruce to release Cello for windows in a month or so and
>there are rumours of Mosaic for Windows in the ?fall?.
>
>Tim BL
Thank Gawd! There _is_ mercy in cyberspace!
-- Mike
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Knowles Won't that road twist you up
mw...@juts.ccc.amdahl.com like a rubber band?
Standard disclaimer applies. Bye Now...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Wilson
>...
>What you need is a native Windows client, not a remote X session.
>Much easier to set up, once you have the SLIP line. We expect
>Tom Bruce to release Cello for windows in a month or so and
>there are rumours of Mosaic for Windows in the ?fall?.
Yup, it's true. We (NCSA) are working on Mosaic for Windows. We should
have a beta release out by the end of the summer, possibly an alpha
before then.
>Tim BL
-Chris Wilson
NCSA Programmer - MS Windows/DOS
cwi...@ncsa.uiuc.edu
David Neal
Thanks to everyone with handy suggestions. About 10 people
mailed me suggesting Linux. Yes, I know about Linux,
I just can't afford the hardware upgrade to run Linux.
Instead I got a copy of PC-Xview for Windows (cheap) and
plan to use MS-DOS and a X/MS-Windows client until I can
afford to upgrade.
Anyone want to sent me a beta copy of a X/MS-Windows client?
David Neal
>>In article <C7yps...@sugar.NeoSoft.COM> dn...@NeoSoft.com (David Neal)
>>writes:
>>
>>Much easier to set up, once you have the SLIP line. We expect
>>Tom Bruce to release Cello for windows in a month or so and
>>there are rumours of Mosaic for Windows in the ?fall?.
>>
>>Tim BL
>>
>
I know it's bad form to follow up on your own post, but
I figured I should explain once now instead of 100 times later.
I know the difference between a SL/IP session, and a PC-Xview
session running NCD's light X protocol. I have in fact installed
and used X (and telnet and ftp) over sl/ip using V.32bis modems many times.
The performance sucks. NCD's proprietary X protocol, on the
other hand is much faster.
I guess my options are:
4) SL/IP, X-mosiac client running on unix speaking to
X-server on PC over SL/IP link.
3) SL/IP, Windows native client speaking TCP/IP over SL/IP
link to remote internetted host.
2) Native PC X Client, talking SL/IP (via socket DLL to remote host)
and talking to Local X server running on PC.
1) Remote X-Client talking to local PC X-server via X-Remote (NCD's
X "light" serial protocol)
Those options are ranked in order of performance; 1 being (IMHO) the
best performance. I can live with #3, but plan to use #1.