schneidr@cs.washington.edu (Scott Schneider) (08/11/90)
I am currently using the Apollo X server (Xapollo) at SR10.2 on an Apollo DN3000. I am using the X server in shared mode as my customers need to run DM applications. Questions about the next release of Apollo's X server: 1. Will the next release of the Apollo X server support shared mode? 2. What is the next release of the Apollo X server? Is it the X11R4 server? 3. What happens at SR10.3? Is there still Shared-mode? 4. If we lose shared mode at either SR10.3 or X11R4, why has Apollo chosen to do this? 5. When is the next release of Apollo's X server? 6. Is the next release going to be faster? (I hope so) What would be real nice is to have an Apollo X11R4 server that supports shared-mode (for those people who need the DM availability) but also runs ***really*** fast in X-only mode. Am I dreaming? If this message appears to portrays conflicting thoughts, it is not you. *I* have no problem working in an X-only mode but my customers like the "security" of the DM so I have to make sure that they don't lose that security blanket. Thanks in advance. Scott Schneider Boeing Commercial schneidr@june.cs.washington.edu -- Scott Schneider | "Communication with an engineer is | Boeing Commercial | only slightly more difficult than | schneidr@june.cs.washington.edu | communication with the dead." |
nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) (08/11/90)
In article <12761@june.cs.washington.edu> schneidr@cs.washington.edu (Scott Schneider) writes: >1. Will the next release of the Apollo X server support > shared mode? > >2. What is the next release of the Apollo X server? Is > it the X11R4 server? Okay, I'm going to make trouble here. According to the rumour mill, the next major release of the X server will be X11R4 at SR11. It will not be share mode. I also understand that HP VUE 2.0 (which, mind you, has very little if nothing to do with HP VUE 1.0, the former being an HP product, the latter Apollo) will run *only* under X11R4. The implication of this is that if you would like to run the DM, you'll have to run old R3, and if you like the features of HP VUE 1.0 which aren't in HP VUE 2.0 you'll have to run old R3. Anyone from Apollo care to refute this? Personally, I'm not affected - I run X-only. However it seems to me that this royally @#$@# the existing customer base. I don't *know* the reason for this, but I suspect it has something to do with attrition and burnout in the Apollo graphics group (the former PE for share-mode X was last seen playing his fiddle in Harvard Square and serving ice cream at a well known Cambridge ice cream store - I kid you not; I understand he's a lot happier now). Obviously HP's graphics groups aren't going to do a share-mode server, so I suspect that R4-share-mode is in limbo. I'd love to see this denied. If someone can, please do. Another note. Some of you would no doubt like to see DM features added to X as a long term migration path. This might include a DM-like editor, DM style editing functions in the Korn shell, DM window manager functions added to the Motif window manager. These things are all eminently doable. However the groups that would do those are not technically part of Apollo anymore - they report to Colorado. And frankly I think HP-proper could care less. I know there is desire to do these things at Apollo - I think that they'd be a really good idea, especially if the resulting programs were fed back to OSF and the X-Consortium, or even released on the net. The DM had some good ideas, the shouldn't end up in a waste bin somewhere. But in any case, I seriously doubt that the resources will be allocated unless the customer base applys serious pressure on HP. >3. What happens at SR10.3? Is there still Shared-mode? Yes. >What would be real nice is to have an Apollo X11R4 server >that supports shared-mode (for those people who need the >DM availability) but also runs ***really*** fast in X-only >mode. Am I dreaming? I could be wrong, but at this point I don't think there can be any great difference in speed between share-mode and borrow-mode. -kee -- Alphalpha Software, Inc. | motif-request@alphalpha.com nazgul@alphalpha.com |----------------------------------- 617/646-7703 (voice/fax) | Proline BBS: 617/641-3722 I'm not sure which upsets me more; that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's.
dclark@mentor.com (dclark:dclark) (08/13/90)
SR10.3 still supports the X/Dm shared mode. I run Motif as my window manager
of choice, but I still leave the DM around to run applications like dspst
(anybody know a decent curses based replacement?), as well as Mentor Graphics
applications. I think its still based on X11R3 (?).
Its a fair bit faster, but still doesn't approach the DM. I think some of
the improvment is due to the speedups in TCP/IP perfomance. I have a 1280x1024
BW monitor. I guess the real perfomance gains were for the color X stuff.
If your running on a DN3000, I doubt you'll ever be able to see really fast X.
In general, X is now a viable alternative at SR10.3.
--
Dave Clark Mentor Graphics Corporation (503) 626-1431
dclark@mentor.com (Std.Disclaimer)
...{sequent, tessi, attunix, apollo, uunet}!mntgfx!dclarkwjw@eba.eb.ele.tue.nl (Willem Jan Withagen) (08/13/90)
In article <1990Aug11.153706.22322@alphalpha.com> nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) writes: >In article <12761@june.cs.washington.edu> schneidr@cs.washington.edu (Scott Schneider) writes: >>1. Will the next release of the Apollo X server support >> shared mode? >> >>2. What is the next release of the Apollo X server? Is >> it the X11R4 server? > >Okay, I'm going to make trouble here. > >According to the rumour mill, the next major release of the X server >will be X11R4 at SR11. It will not be share mode. I also understand >that HP VUE 2.0 (which, mind you, has very little if nothing to do >with HP VUE 1.0, the former being an HP product, the latter Apollo) will >run *only* under X11R4. The implication of this is that if you would >like to run the DM, you'll have to run old R3, and if you like the features >of HP VUE 1.0 which aren't in HP VUE 2.0 you'll have to run old R3. Anyone >from Apollo care to refute this? > >Personally, I'm not affected - I run X-only. Well we ARE, and my guess is that a lot of others are too. We're running several sets of VLSI-design tools, and most of them are using Domain/DM calls to get things done. Now at 10.2/R3 it's possible to satisfy both types of people, those running the tools. (We've paid a lot of money for them) But then there's this army of people wanting to use X-tools, the've tried to learn the 'standard' on UniX. And now this again gets meshed up. Unless all (VLSI-design) tools would change to using X, which would not be a trivial conversion. I know one package which promisses to do so, in new future will Parcplace's Smalltalk run X. I don't know if it's going to require R4. But still if there's an update of some software you'd like to update too, wouldn't you. The worst I could forsee is that Dm and X are going to stay separate, and that R3 is going to be the last shared-mode version. So you'll be either running X or Dm in their newest release, or you'll get stuck at some old release to be able to run both. Let's hope it's not true! Willem Jan Withagen. Eindhoven University of Technology DomainName: wjw@eb.ele.tue.nl Digital Systems Group, Room EH 10.10 BITNET: ELEBWJ@HEITUE5.BITNET P.O. 513 Tel: +31-40-473401 5600 MB Eindhoven The Netherlands
jimr@maths.su.oz.au (Jim Richardson) (08/13/90)
In article <1990Aug11.153706.22322@alphalpha.com>, nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) writes: >According to the rumour mill, the next major release of the X server >will be X11R4 at SR11. It will not be share mode. I also understand >that HP VUE 2.0 (which, mind you, has very little if nothing to do >with HP VUE 1.0, the former being an HP product, the latter Apollo) will >run *only* under X11R4. The implication of this is that if you would >like to run the DM, you'll have to run old R3, and if you like the features >of HP VUE 1.0 which aren't in HP VUE 2.0 you'll have to run old R3. ... > >Personally, I'm not affected - I run X-only. However it seems to me that >this royally @#$@# the existing customer base. ... > >I'd love to see this denied. If someone can, please do. Since the X11R3 share-mode Xapollo and the HP VUE 1.0 features mentioned by Kee are already in existence, it should not take a particularly large program- ming effort within HP to upgrade these to X11R4 and HP VUE 2.0 respectively. So I hope the "rumour mill" turns out to be wrong on both these points. But if the rumours are correct, they are very disturbing indeed. We're not using HP VUE here yet, so I can't speak for it. But the share-mode X11 server is elegantly implemented and provides a smooth, gradual and painless evol- utionary route into X for people used to the DM. It allows us to continue to use the DM Editor (in my opinion superior to anything available under X, though I don't want to start an editor religious war), and also to continue to manage windows through the DM, which is convenient, fast, and familiar. At the same time, it gives us access to X11 applications. As I see it, HP has made a commitment to the continuation of Domain/OS for at least some years to come. For example, at the HP/Apollo 9000 Sydney launch on 26 July, in answer to a question from the floor, HP's 68000 Product Line Manager stated (if my notes are correct) that the release of OSF/1 some time in 1991 will not make Domain/OS or HP/UX obsolete in the near term, and that there will be a migration path over a period of years from the two existing systems to OSF/1. It seems to me that withdrawal of the share-mode X11 server from SR11 would not be compatible wth this. It would represent a major reduction in function- ality. Furthermore, it would be a loss in an area that's extremely sensitive from the point of view of migration: it would drive a lot of sites away from X and back to DM-only operations. It's only about two years since we made a decision here to move from VAX/VMS to Domain/OS. The DM was one of the big attractions that drew us to Apollo. We've been through the pain of relearning everything from scratch quite recently enough, and have no desire to have to make another major switch for at least another six or eight years. >Some of you would no doubt like to see DM features added to X as a long term >migration path. This might include a DM-like editor, DM style editing functions >in the Korn shell, DM window manager functions added to the Motif window manager. >These things are all eminently doable. However the groups that would do those >are not technically part of Apollo anymore - they report to Colorado. And frankly >I think HP-proper could care less. I know there is desire to do these things at >Apollo - I think that they'd be a really good idea, especially if the resulting >programs were fed back to OSF and the X-Consortium, or even released on the net. >The DM had some good ideas, the shouldn't end up in a waste bin somewhere. Absoulutely. I'd certainly like to encourage Apollo people in HP to work towards this, if Kee is right and you're in there. The share-mode X server is a brilliant start. But far from having it abandoned, let's see the idea continued along the lines Kee suggests, through the re-implementation of DM functions under X. If this sort of thing is not done, then the "innovation of Apollo", which is -- judging from the 9000 series sales literature -- seen as a real plus by HP, will become just a memory. >But in any case, I seriously doubt that the resources will be allocated unless >the customer base applys serious pressure on HP. Well, come on, customer base, you heard that! The "Open Letter" addresses the issues of post-sales support for Apollo customers, and in Request 1 it asks for Domain/OS support resources commen- surate with what's available for HP/UX. But it says very little about system *development* issues. For my part, given the statements HP had made, these were not such a worry. But the rumours in Kee's posting have alarmed me on this new front. One way to draw attention to this issue would be to mention it in personal cover letters for the Open Letter when (next week some time) we send it out to HP. [Remember the signature deadline is this coming Thursday.] I was all set to buy a couple of 400t's, but I've asked the salesperson for information on a share-mode X server at SR11 and am postponing the order for the time being. The main reason we stick with HP/Apollo here is a liking for Domain/OS and the DM in particular: if we have to change from them, we may as well go to Sun, say, where the performance/price ratio seems to me better anyway, at least on educational discounts. I feel the sales force are most likely to be receptive to questions on the future development of Domain/OS ... after all, they have our interests at heart! :-) -- Jim Richardson Department of Pure Mathematics, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia Internet: jimr@maths.su.oz.au Phone: +61 2 692 2232 FAX: +61 2 692 4534