bennete@urania.CS.ORST.EDU (Erik Bennett;;;757-2454;) (02/10/89)
I cannot seem to mail Dale Luck directly, so:
Will you put me on the X-newsletter mailing list?
Thanks,
-Erik
bennete@urania.cs.orst.edusoh@shiva.trl.oz (kam hung soh) (10/17/90)
In article <123395@linus.mitre.org> duncant@mbunix.mitre.org (Thomson) writes: > .... [ Steve Jobs' talk at a conference in Tokyo that the author attended ] > .... >Could someone explain what it is about X-windows that makes it "brain damaged" >or "fatally flawed"? There's a long thread in comp.windows.x about what is good and bad about X. Personally, X is not bad as far as windowing systems are concerned. Sure, it can be a memory hog, require some swap space on disk, and dead slow at times. It's big selling point (for a free system, that ain't bad) is that it is supported on many different platforms, and the programs written in X tend to be portable. Many people don't like X because it doesn't specify a user interface standard. They forget that all X does is provide a standard programming interface for windowing environments. It is up to vendors and committees to specify the "look and feel" of applications. I don't really give a damn whether the computer I'm using has X or Intuition or Windows. Most graphic user interfaces look the same, and if I can customise the mouse actions, they feel the same as well. Unfortunately, people in marketing seem to think that a particular windowing system is important to novices, so they make a big fuss about it in advertisements. ------ Soh, Kam Hung email: h.soh@trl.oz.au tel: +61 03 541 6403 Telecom Research Laboratories, P.O. Box 249, Clayton, Victoria 3168, Australia
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (10/19/90)
In article <2356@trlluna.trl.oz> soh@shiva.trl.oz (kam hung soh) writes: > Many people don't like X because it doesn't specify a user interface > standard. That's a new one, actually. The problem with X is that it's very low level, so each application is responsible for the entire UI. There are no system supported menus, or gadgets, or icons... in fact, the system doesn't support anything but (in Amiga terms) layers. Everything else is the responsibility of the applications. This means that X programs are very large, and very complicated. It also means that X requires a lot more horsepower from the application processor than higher level systems like MGR or NeWS. Another result? Bigger and more complex toolkits that wrap the program around the user interface. > I don't really give a damn whether the computer I'm using has X or > Intuition or Windows. You're not a programmer. You can get the same results from MS-DOS or AmigaOS, but it's a hell of a lot harder when you basically have to rewrite the O/S every time you write a program. X is to windowing as DOS is to operating systems. Hands up everyone here who likes DOS. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
gilgalad@caen.engin.umich.edu (Ralph Seguin) (10/19/90)
In article <6828@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >This means that X programs are very large, and very complicated. It also >means that X requires a lot more horsepower from the application processor >than higher level systems like MGR or NeWS. No doubt about it. Even simple X applications can run over a meg easily. >Another result? Bigger and more complex toolkits that wrap the program >around the user interface. Ahhh, but the toolkits provide such a nice environment. >> I don't really give a damn whether the computer I'm using has X or >> Intuition or Windows. Actually, X and Intuition are very similar. >You're not a programmer. You can get the same results from MS-DOS or AmigaOS, >but it's a hell of a lot harder when you basically have to rewrite the O/S >every time you write a program. X is to windowing as DOS is to operating >systems. I disagree, with the Xtoolkit, it is a snap to produce stuff. There are some very nice things in X (and the toolkit) for programmers. There are some things in X that should be in Intuition. >Hands up everyone here who likes DOS. Count me out there! 8-) Give me UNIX and Amiga OS (concurrently preferably 8-) >Peter da Silva. `-_-' ><peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>. See ya, Ralph gilgalad@dip.eecs.umich.edu gilgalad@caen.engin.umich.edu Ralph Seguin | "You mean THE Zaphod Beeblebrox?" 536 South Forest | Apartment 915 | "No. Haven't you heard, I come in six packs!" Ann Arbor, MI 48104 | (313) 662-4805
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (10/19/90)
In article <1990Oct19.075445.12417@engin.umich.edu> gilgalad@caen.engin.umich.edu (Ralph Seguin) writes: > >> I don't really give a damn whether the computer I'm using has X or > >> Intuition or Windows. > Actually, X and Intuition are very similar. Similar how? Intuition is quite a bit higher-level than X: the current selection of intuition-supported objects is small, but with gadtools they can be increased indefinitely... and unlike X these tools will be upgradedable without rebuilding all your programs: look at requestors on a 2.0 system. Look at all the scroll bars that have automagically changed to be consistent with 2.0. The difference between 1.3 and 2.0 is at least as great as between OpenLook and Motif, and all the programs run under both! And when the program's out running computations (i.e., doing the real work you're trying to get done) the screen is still live. It's a *big* difference. > I disagree, with the Xtoolkit, it is a snap to produce stuff. All of which remains (a) large and (b) dependent on your program getting back to the screen *quickly* to handle refresh events. ALL X windows are simple- refresh! Then we get to color selections. Ever opened a color window and had all the colors of your other windows change? The screens concept is much cleaner than anything I've seen elsewhere. Yes, there's some nice stuff that's done in X. Throw enough programmers at something and you can do miracles: look at DOS! But it's been done despite the fundamental brain-damage in X, not because of it. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
DUG%CZHETH5A.BITNET@pucc.princeton.edu (10/20/90)
Comment: Mail not returnable through this path, use the list address
Author: AEOLUS::NOTESMAN "Mail-To-Notes Daemon"
Topic 1611.0
Time: 19-OCT-1990 19:05 ZRH
Received: from PUCC by PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU (Mailer R2.08A) with BSMTP id 7036;
Fri, 19 Oct 90 12:17:41 EDT
Received: from udel.edu by pucc.PRINCETON.EDU (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with TCP;
Fri, 19 Oct 90 12:17:36 EDT
Received: from louie.udel.edu by louie.udel.edu id ad19761; 19 Oct 90 8:11 GMT
Received: from USENET by louie.udel.edu id aa19565; 19 Oct 90 3:57 EDT
Received: from snow-white.ee.udel.edu by louie.udel.edu id ad19532;
19 Oct 90 3:57 EDT
Received: from nigel.ee.udel.edu by snow-white.ee.udel.edu id ad02175;
19 Oct 90 7:53 GMT
From: Peter da Silva <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: X (was Re: NeXT & Interface Builders)
Message-ID: <6828@sugar.hackercorp.com>
Date: 19 Oct 90 02:47:46 GMT
Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston
To: amiga-relay@udel.edu
Sender: amiga-relay-request@udel.edu
In article <2356@trlluna.trl.oz> soh@shiva.trl.oz (kam hung soh) writes:
> Many people don't like X because it doesn't specify a user interface
> standard.
That's a new one, actually. The problem with X is that it's very low
level, so each application is responsible for the entire UI. There are
no system supported menus, or gadgets, or icons... in fact, the system
doesn't support anything but (in Amiga terms) layers. Everything else
is the responsibility of the applications.
This means that X programs are very large, and very complicated. It also
means that X requires a lot more horsepower from the application processor
than higher level systems like MGR or NeWS.
Another result? Bigger and more complex toolkits that wrap the program
around the user interface.
> I don't really give a damn whether the computer I'm using has X or
> Intuition or Windows.
You're not a programmer. You can get the same results from MS-DOS or AmigaOS,