4 ms·

We've come full circle. We invented a GUI to replace the TUI, then reimplemented the GUI in the TUI. Long live the terminal!

ninetyninenine 2y ago
We've done it twice. Many terminals run under electron or equivalent browser interfaces. So we've implemented TUI in the GUI as well!
- hnlmorg 2y ago
  That’s also applies to literally every terminal emulator written since xterm. Most of the modern terms these days have GPU acceleration too.
  - ninetyninenine 2y ago
    No. This isn’t true. Most terminals are native. They don’t run under a browser engine.
    - hnlmorg 2y ago
      A browser engine isn’t a prerequisite for something using a graphical framework nor running on a desktop environment
      - ninetyninenine 2y ago
        Ah I see what you mean. I mean it’s all pixels in the end right? and pixels are primitives for guis. So then the root primitive is in actuality the gui.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
- tomxor 2y ago
  That sounds like the worst thing ever. So many good native terminals to choose from why ruin it with electron.
cmrdporcupine 2y ago
Revenge of DESQview
- leejoramo 2y ago
  I used DESQview for a number of years, and always think about it when see new TUI systems https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DESQview https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DESQview
  - sushidev 2y ago
    I tried to use desqview but it was too slow on my 386 33mhz machine… not sure how much RAM it had back then but I recall it was the bottleneck and swapping to disk caused everything to lag.
    - lproven 2y ago
      I think you are confusing old memories here. DESQview did not do any memory management of its own, and it did not use graphics. It was entirely local and had no networking. It was famously fast. It was a DOS multitasker so it managed DOS tasks, meaning multiple slots of 640kB. On a 386 with 4MB of RAM you could have 6 full-size DOS VMs with a bit left over. If you were a power user you could still have say a big 1-2-3 spreadsheet in EMS plus a few DOS VMs. DESQview delegated memory management to QEMM386, and QEMM386 did not do swapping. It didn't need to. DESQview/X was a totally different product, with a full GUI, so much bigger and slower -- and it added an optional extension that added full virtual memory with swapping to disk. I am wondering if you are mixing up DESQview (small, fast, local) with DV/x (big, complicated, networked, had optional VM)? Or indeed DV/x with something else altogether? OS/2 maybe? Because if it was swapping, it wasn't DESQview, not in any normal sane config anyway. It might be possible to add DV/x VM to plain old DESQview but I never heard of anyone doing that.
- nxobject 2y ago
  It’s funny - I think of DESQView/X, their fully compliant X11 server complete with both Motif and OpenLook. The exact opposite of vanilla DESQview.
fragmede 2y ago
run it through aalib for good measure
- CaffeineLD50 2y ago
  Totes.
pantulis 2y ago
The demo video has a lot of Borland's Turbo Vision vibes.
- pjmlp 2y ago
  It was a great framework, it was my path into OOP, after learning it previously in TP 5.5 (TV was released alongside TP 6, and Borland C++ 3.0), and its design was quite pragmatic.
  - pantulis 2y ago
    Sure, it was awesome, it was also my first exposure to OOP but I think for a beginner it was slightly too deep and I ended up doing things without knowing what I was doing... although they worked.
hidelooktropic 2y ago
Yeah. Am I missing the point that this leans so far into being as capable as a GUI as it can, that we lose something from starting in the terminal in the first place?
- fmxsh 2y ago
  I was exploring why Linux terminal environment is so powerful compared to Windows terminal. Windows is built at the kernel level to support graphics and GUI, while *nix systems are built with terminal at the core. Thus Windows historically has had way more powerful GUIs. They are two different domains of power. Each of them also trying to do what the other does better.
  - pjmlp 2y ago
    Every desktop OS has been like that, UNIX is the exception, as it was originally designed for a timesharing headless system. And with exception of command.com, most have had good CLI shells, without having to pretend being a teletype, like UNIX ones. Amiga DOS with REXX was great, Oberon REPL, Smalltalk Transcript, Interlisp-D REPL, Xerox Star Mesa XDE,....
    - -__---____-ZXyw 2y ago
      Interesting perspective. I've poked at the medley interlisp revival project, as well as glamorous toolkit, and cuis, but hadn't heard about most of the things you mention here. Will be investigating.

ninetyninenine 2y ago

We've done it twice. Many terminals run under electron or equivalent browser interfaces. So we've implemented TUI in the GUI as well!

hnlmorg 2y ago
That’s also applies to literally every terminal emulator written since xterm. Most of the modern terms these days have GPU acceleration too.
- ninetyninenine 2y ago
  No. This isn’t true. Most terminals are native. They don’t run under a browser engine.
  - hnlmorg 2y ago
    A browser engine isn’t a prerequisite for something using a graphical framework nor running on a desktop environment
    - ninetyninenine 2y ago
      Ah I see what you mean. I mean it’s all pixels in the end right? and pixels are primitives for guis. So then the root primitive is in actuality the gui.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
tomxor 2y ago
That sounds like the worst thing ever. So many good native terminals to choose from why ruin it with electron.

cmrdporcupine 2y ago

Revenge of DESQview

leejoramo 2y ago
I used DESQview for a number of years, and always think about it when see new TUI systems https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DESQview https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DESQview
- sushidev 2y ago
  I tried to use desqview but it was too slow on my 386 33mhz machine… not sure how much RAM it had back then but I recall it was the bottleneck and swapping to disk caused everything to lag.
  - lproven 2y ago
    I think you are confusing old memories here. DESQview did not do any memory management of its own, and it did not use graphics. It was entirely local and had no networking. It was famously fast. It was a DOS multitasker so it managed DOS tasks, meaning multiple slots of 640kB. On a 386 with 4MB of RAM you could have 6 full-size DOS VMs with a bit left over. If you were a power user you could still have say a big 1-2-3 spreadsheet in EMS plus a few DOS VMs. DESQview delegated memory management to QEMM386, and QEMM386 did not do swapping. It didn't need to. DESQview/X was a totally different product, with a full GUI, so much bigger and slower -- and it added an optional extension that added full virtual memory with swapping to disk. I am wondering if you are mixing up DESQview (small, fast, local) with DV/x (big, complicated, networked, had optional VM)? Or indeed DV/x with something else altogether? OS/2 maybe? Because if it was swapping, it wasn't DESQview, not in any normal sane config anyway. It might be possible to add DV/x VM to plain old DESQview but I never heard of anyone doing that.
nxobject 2y ago
It’s funny - I think of DESQView/X, their fully compliant X11 server complete with both Motif and OpenLook. The exact opposite of vanilla DESQview.

fragmede 2y ago

run it through aalib for good measure

CaffeineLD50 2y ago
Totes.

pantulis 2y ago

The demo video has a lot of Borland's Turbo Vision vibes.

pjmlp 2y ago
It was a great framework, it was my path into OOP, after learning it previously in TP 5.5 (TV was released alongside TP 6, and Borland C++ 3.0), and its design was quite pragmatic.
- pantulis 2y ago
  Sure, it was awesome, it was also my first exposure to OOP but I think for a beginner it was slightly too deep and I ended up doing things without knowing what I was doing... although they worked.

hidelooktropic 2y ago

Yeah. Am I missing the point that this leans so far into being as capable as a GUI as it can, that we lose something from starting in the terminal in the first place?

fmxsh 2y ago
I was exploring why Linux terminal environment is so powerful compared to Windows terminal. Windows is built at the kernel level to support graphics and GUI, while *nix systems are built with terminal at the core. Thus Windows historically has had way more powerful GUIs. They are two different domains of power. Each of them also trying to do what the other does better.
- pjmlp 2y ago
  Every desktop OS has been like that, UNIX is the exception, as it was originally designed for a timesharing headless system. And with exception of command.com, most have had good CLI shells, without having to pretend being a teletype, like UNIX ones. Amiga DOS with REXX was great, Oberon REPL, Smalltalk Transcript, Interlisp-D REPL, Xerox Star Mesa XDE,....
  - -__---____-ZXyw 2y ago
    Interesting perspective. I've poked at the medley interlisp revival project, as well as glamorous toolkit, and cuis, but hadn't heard about most of the things you mention here. Will be investigating.