mohta@necom830.cc.titech.ac.jp (Masataka Ohta) (04/15/91)
In article <26550@adm.brl.mil> preece@urbana.mcd.mot.com (Scott E. Preece) writes: >Most of the critics have failed to suggest what they would have liked to >see as a windowing interface instead of X. You have failed to suggest the other alternative: not to use any window system. I have been using character terminals for many years, because I don't think window system gives effecient developping environment. I often irretated to see someone using window system ineffeciently. >The performance and resource costs of X are being addressed in several >ways, by the X Consortium, by the various vendors of add-on toolkits, >and by platform vendors selling X-based products; major algorithm >changes, reconsideration of resource allocation policies, and the >growing availability of shared libraries should make the next release a >significant improvement over X11R4. Shared library is NO solution. It only moves complexity, unstability and ineffeciency of X to UNIX. With rationally small environment, like mine, shared library is of no use, which keeps UNIX simple. Masataka Ohta
jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) (04/16/91)
(Note the Followup-To. Religious bashing of windows vs. terminals belongs in alt.religion.computers, not here. Edit the Newsgroups to direct followups to this newsgroup only if you want to reply to the end of my posting, which discusses shared libraries.) In article <97@titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp>, mohta@necom830.cc.titech.ac.jp (Masataka Ohta) writes: |> I have been using character terminals for many years, because I don't |> think window system gives effecient developping environment. I often |> irretated to see someone using window system ineffeciently. I work both on an X display and on a vt240. The amount of work I get done sitting in front of the X display is easily orders of magnitude greater than whta I get done when working on the vt240 (conceded, the vt240 is usually at 2400 baud, but I don't think that's the limiting factor, because I've experienced similar ratios when working on a high-speed tty display). I think it is absurd to claim that it is impossible for a properly designed window-oriented setup to increase efficiency, and I think it is almost as absurd to claim that it is not possible to set up a properly designed window-oriented setup under X. Sure, X has its problems, I've got no argument with that. However, ignoring for the moment the amount of memory it takes to run X, because I don't think that's really the issue being discussed here and because it's possible to avoid that issue by using X terminals or something like that, to claim that a character terminal is more efficient than an X display strikes me as ludicrous. You can get the same efficiency as a character terminal under X by running one xterm with no window manager. The second you put up another window, it seems to me that the potential "efficiency" has increased. |> Shared library is NO solution. It only moves complexity, unstability |> and ineffeciency of X to UNIX. This, too, strikes me as an unnecessarily broad statement with little basis in fact. X isn't the only thing that uses libraries, and X isn't the only thing that benefits from shared libraries. It is my impression that the Unix industry has, in general, come to agreement on the idea that shared libraries are a good thing, simply because they make more memory available to the user while having little or no negative side-effects. -- Jonathan Kamens USnail: MIT Project Athena 11 Ashford Terrace jik@Athena.MIT.EDU Allston, MA 02134 Office: 617-253-8085 Home: 617-782-0710
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR/AA) (04/17/91)
As quoted from <97@titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp> by mohta@necom830.cc.titech.ac.jp (Masataka Ohta): +--------------- | You have failed to suggest the other alternative: not to use any window | system. | | I have been using character terminals for many years, because I don't | think window system gives effecient developping environment. I often | irretated to see someone using window system ineffeciently. +--------------- Beg pardon, but window systems *do* help in efficient development. However, I don't claim it must be GUI-based; MultiView and a screen clone I am working on do a decent job. +--------------- | Shared library is NO solution. It only moves complexity, unstability | and ineffeciency of X to UNIX. | With rationally small environment, like mine, shared library is of no | use, which keeps UNIX simple. +--------------- With that argument, I bet you'd love to still be using v6 Unix.... Shared libraries *do* have a place in standard Unix. And not just for gigabyte GUIs... the standard C library is a shared library in V.3, which cuts the size of the system down by quite a bit. I assume this has been continued into V.4. ++Brandon -- Me: Brandon S. Allbery Ham: KB8JRR/AA on 2m, 220, 440, 1200 Internet: allbery@NCoast.ORG (QRT on HF until local problems fixed) America OnLine: KB8JRR // Delphi: ALLBERY AMPR: kb8jrr.AmPR.ORG [44.70.4.88] uunet!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery KB8JRR @ WA8BXN.OH
guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) (04/19/91)
>Shared libraries *do* have a place in standard Unix. And not just for >gigabyte GUIs... the standard C library is a shared library in V.3, which cuts >the size of the system down by quite a bit. I assume this has been continued >into V.4. Improved in V.4, actually; when you link a program, you get shared libraries if they exist, unless you ask *not* to get them, unlike V.3 where you have to explicitly ask for the shared version when you link (if you don't have to on your system, somebody changed it from the way AT&T did it).
ekrell@ulysses.att.com (Eduardo Krell) (04/20/91)
In article <7246@auspex.auspex.com> guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) writes: >Improved in V.4, actually; when you link a program, you get shared >libraries if they exist, unless you ask *not* to get them, unlike V.3 >where you have to explicitly ask for the shared version when you link >(if you don't have to on your system, somebody changed it from the way >AT&T did it). I believe the default was changed to link with shared libraries starting with 3.2.x for some value of x. Actually, the dependency is not on the version of the OS but rather on the version of the C compiler package. Eduardo Krell AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ UUCP: {att,decvax,ucbvax}!ulysses!ekrell Internet: ekrell@ulysses.att.com
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR/AA) (04/21/91)
As quoted from <7246@auspex.auspex.com> by guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris): +--------------- | Improved in V.4, actually; when you link a program, you get shared | libraries if they exist, unless you ask *not* to get them, unlike V.3 | where you have to explicitly ask for the shared version when you link | (if you don't have to on your system, somebody changed it from the way | AT&T did it). +--------------- I do have to ask for them, but that's minor compared to having to ask for the right C compiler... being SCO UNIX, the only rational way to compile things is "gcc -traditional ... -lc_s -lintl". ++Brandon -- Me: Brandon S. Allbery Ham: KB8JRR/AA on 2m, 220, 440, 1200 Internet: allbery@NCoast.ORG (QRT on HF until local problems fixed) America OnLine: KB8JRR // Delphi: ALLBERY AMPR: kb8jrr.AmPR.ORG [44.70.4.88] uunet!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery KB8JRR @ WA8BXN.OH