Ted writes:

> Thus it was written in the epistle of Wirt Atmar,
>  >
>  > However, on the bright side, it does make our decision not to support DEC
>  > emulation into QCTerm seem more reasonable.
>  >
> With all due respect Wirt (and no, this isn't an attempt to convince you to
> do anything), I don't see what DEC's demise has to do with it.  Unless my
> experience is truly unique, the primary use of DEC emulation is to connect
> to non-Dec Un*x boxes.  Those will continue to exist and I expect that
> VT100, et al will continue to be a very standard method of connecting
> to a whole lot of machines.  Shoot, we even use an entirely 3000-based
> product which we purchased and then discovered that the setup
> screens depend on VT emulation.

I should learn to use smiley faces more often. I was just kidding in my final
paragraph. Ted's right. DEC's demise has nothing to do with the future use of
VT emulation, especially on UNIX boxes. VT emulation became an ANSI standard
quite a few years ago -- and that puts it on an entirely different plateau,
one that is vendor-independent.

Nonetheless, I don't see us reversing our decision about not supporting VT
emulation any time soon.

Nor was I kidding about my saying that Pfeiffer's statement was about as dumb
a move as he could have made. He's very shortly going to have a riot on his
hands -- and perhaps a great number of lawsuits.

As a related observation, I noticed that Compaq scrubbed all reference to
Digital out of the AltaVista website and search engine over the weekend.

Wirt Atmar