Len%AIP1%TSD@atc.bendix.COM (11/24/87)
Received: from GRACIE by HEART-OF-GOLD via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 263; Mon 23-Nov-87 11:20:18 EST Date: Mon, 23 Nov 87 11:20 EST From: Sai-Cheong Arnold Chu <Gilgamesh@HEART-OF-GOLD.ABATSD> Subject: Re: X hatchet job To: "3077::IN%\"xpert@athena.mit.edu\""@TSD1.ABATSD In-Reply-To: msg from John Gilmore <hoptoad.UUCP!gnu@cgl.ucsf.edu> Message-ID: <871123112034.2.GILGAMESH@GRACIE.ABATSD> Yes, we are building a portable computer. 512 kb refers only to the memory available to the 34010 and hence the server. I would love to be able to retain X without any modifications. However, even if we modify it, all the client application will be written inhouse. It will not be available to the public as a general purpose computer. There will be no impact on X windows' reputation. Besides, the only true standard in X is the protocals. The server implementation included is stated explicitly NOT to be a reference server. There are a lot of code in the server trying to adapt to many different types of frame buffers and machines. This level of generality is not necessary for my application. We are planning to eliminate that type of codes before affecting the functionality of X. What I would like to hear from the experienced X hackers is whether this approach seems feasible and which area they think we should work on first.