korp@atlantis.ees.anl.gov (Peter Korp) (11/06/90)
The OpenWindows server is part of the V.4 distribution. AT&T delivers V.4 with their XWIN X-Windows server. My question is why? What is the logic of actively promoting a window server that is a SUBSET of another that you claim is part of your distribution. I know that it is not that much more difficult to port the OpenWindows server than a straight X server, so is it just a case of NIH? And finally a flame at all those supposed V.4 compliant vendors. I don't see why not a single V.4 vendor has come out in support of OpenWindows. It is not a question of X vs. NeWS, or Motif vs Open Look, all of these things work in OpenWindows so what is the deal? OpenWindows is X, OpenWindows is NeWS, and OpenWindows can do Open Look or Motif. There seems to be no reason, other than politics, not to port it. As for the common cry of "OpenWindows is a memory hog" I can only say the following, when NeWS people bash X for using up network bandwidth they say networks will get faster, memory is getting cheaper and faster at a larger rate than networks get faster. So memory requirements are not an issue, the server isn't really that piggy either. Enough flaming, lets start talking about what to do with this new found prize. I'm still looking for a killer app or ideas about a killer app. I would certainly be willing to organize an effort to design and implement such a beast. Peter
janssen@parc.xerox.com (Bill Janssen) (11/06/90)
Well, one interesting reason people might not want to support the Open Windows xnews server is that it is neither "just X" nor "just NeWS". If people start writing programs that take advantage of, say, being able to render PostScript in an X window, or doing rubber-banding in the server, that program won't run on any other X server or X terminal (pity that there isn't a Display-PostScript interface to the NeWS side of the server; that would make DEC & IBM & Sun X servers compatible). And AT&T might have legitimate business reasons for not wanting to promote a system that could lock applications into a "non-standard" interface server. Bill -- Bill Janssen janssen@parc.xerox.com (415) 494-4763 Xerox Palo Alto Research Center 3333 Coyote Hill Road, Palo Alto, California 94304
korp@atlantis.ees.anl.gov (Peter Korp) (11/07/90)
In article <JANSSEN.90Nov6001257@holmes.parc.xerox.com> janssen@parc.xerox.com (Bill Janssen) writes: >Well, one interesting reason people might not want to support the Open >Windows xnews server is that it is neither "just X" nor "just NeWS". >If people start writing programs that take advantage of, say, being >able to render PostScript in an X window, or doing rubber-banding in >the server, that program won't run on any other X server or X terminal >(pity that there isn't a Display-PostScript interface to the NeWS side >of the server; that would make DEC & IBM & Sun X servers compatible). > Hmmmm...... This logic is flawed from the start. Firstly, for anyone writing an OpenWindows program that used the NeWS extensions it WOULD run on any OpenWindows system. Instead of being defined as an extension it is an integral part of OpenWindows. As a day to day example, if I have a Super VHS VCR should I only record programs in standard VHS because VHS is the most standard? I would think not, as any SVHS VCR would be able to play my tapes. At some point inovation must not be stifled, downward compatability is a good thing. An interesting experiment would be to write a simple app that converts X-DP packets to something NeWS can understand. I think it would show the inherent performance advantage of NeWS to X with Display PostScript. BTW.. Your logic would conclude "don't write anything but Xt code" as all other toolkits and server extensions are unknown. That is where OpenWindows wins big, PostScript, true circular windows, shared memory windows, etc.. are all a STANDARD part of OW, not an extension. >And AT&T might have legitimate business reasons for not wanting to >promote a system that could lock applications into a "non-standard" >interface server. > If AT&T were to promote the OpenWindows server it would be a "standard". V.4 licensees represent, I think, the majority of systems out there. >Bill >-- > Bill Janssen janssen@parc.xerox.com (415) 494-4763 > Xerox Palo Alto Research Center > 3333 Coyote Hill Road, Palo Alto, California 94304 Ultimately, if you want it is possible to restrain oneself and write just X or NeWS code, thus making it portable but uninteresting. Peter