Linux can use dumb terminals and X terminals, but can it use any types of bitmap terminal, say with SVGALib producing the output? Are the any sources for cheap, small foot print ARM based single board computers?
On Sun, 2004-01-25 at 21:22, Tarquin Mills wrote:
Linux can use dumb terminals and X terminals, but can it use any types of bitmap terminal, say with SVGALib producing the output?
How would this be any different in the long run from, say, an X terminal? DEC used to make graphical terminals with mice and keyboards, VT2000s, IIRC. And they were just X terminals. You wouldn't want to run a framebuffer over a slow line, like you would a dumb terminal, because of all the traffic. Where using X you transmit the primitives to draw the image, rather than the image itself.
Perhaps if you could explain more precisely what it is your after, and how you'd like to connect it to the Unix box?
Are the any sources for cheap, small foot print ARM based single board computers?
Yeah - Simtec. http://www.simtec.co.uk/ - They're likely to be the cheapest around, and I know they do things in ATX, micro ATX and smaller form factors, with CPUs ranging from ARM7500s to SA110s to ARM9s.
B.
Rob Kendrick wrote:
On Sun, 2004-01-25 at 21:22, Tarquin Mills wrote:
Linux can use dumb terminals and X terminals, but can it use any types of bitmap terminal, say with SVGALib producing the output?
How would this be any different in the long run from, say, an X terminal? DEC used to make graphical terminals with mice and keyboards, VT2000s, IIRC. And they were just X terminals. You wouldn't want to run a framebuffer over a slow line, like you would a dumb terminal, because of all the traffic. Where using X you transmit the primitives to draw the image, rather than the image itself.
Perhaps if you could explain more precisely what it is your after, and how you'd like to connect it to the Unix box?
Bitmap would need 100Mbit ethernet. X Servers take time to write.
On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 17:49, Tarquin Mills wrote:
Perhaps if you could explain more precisely what it is your after, and how you'd like to connect it to the Unix box?
Bitmap would need 100Mbit ethernet. X Servers take time to write.
I don't understand what you mean. What are you trying to display on the terminal?
Eeerm WHAT???
Bitmap would need 100Mbit ethernet. X Servers take time to write.
No. 10 meg network (old style co-ax (both thick and thin) eithernet) with a variety of Mainframe, dumb terminal, fat and thin clients running X Server and clients all over the place (this is a few years back now) using various bitmapped images of various sizes being passed across that network.
And more recently, using X and 1200 x 968 full 16 bit graphics of BZFlag across a 100 meg network (ok so it canes it) works fine. Normal bitmaps should be fine on 10 meg.
J
On 27 Jan 2004, at 19:02, J wrote:
Bitmap would need 100Mbit ethernet. X Servers take time to write.
No. 10 meg network (old style co-ax (both thick and thin) eithernet) with a variety of Mainframe, dumb terminal, fat and thin clients running X Server and clients all over the place (this is a few years back now) using various bitmapped images of various sizes being passed across that network.
And more recently, using X and 1200 x 968 full 16 bit graphics of BZFlag across a 100 meg network (ok so it canes it) works fine. Normal bitmaps should be fine on 10 meg.
Ah those thin clients.. we got a few left put away now. Like they would be some use to anyone?
C
Ah those thin clients.. we got a few left put away now. Like they would be some use to anyone?
C
Whilst the hardware implementation of fat thin client isnt relevant any more due to stupendous computing power, there are many programs (especially p2p, chat and game programs) which use software implementation of the algorithms used in Fat Thin Clients.
J
-
Craig -
J -
Rob Kendrick -
Tarquin Mills