steve@cs.hw.ac.uk (Steven Salvini) (06/15/91)
A couple of weeks ago I posted a request for views on the comparative utility of the Sun NeWS/X server versus the mit X11R4 server. I have had an overwhelming response and I would like to take this opportunity of thanking all those who replied. I have tried to summarise the responses in the article below - in case anyone is interested, the jury is still out as to whether or not I trash OW completely in favour of the mit server. However, it is certain that even if OW does survive it will only do so to allow the use of old sunview applications awaiting upgrading to X compatibility and not because anyone actually *wants* it! The main points in favour of the mit server for us is its availability for a wide range of hardware - pretty essential for a network consisting of Sun3s, Sun4s in all their various possible configurations, HPs & DECstations - and the wide range of public domain software - again pretty essential in a poor university environment! ;-( (A number of people suggested that there is a need for something in the FAQ on the OW v. mit server debate - FAQ looker-afterers, wha'd'ya think?) Steve. Pro MIT server: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Server itself is smaller thus uses less disk space, less swap space and less real memory. The "installables" are also smaller. Extensions available include the "SHAPE" extension but not Display PostScript although this will be in R5. (Note that scalable fonts are still possible in R4 but you must build actual physical font files rather than simple Unix pipes.) Has better XDMCP support. Allows the creation of a uniform system across a wide range of different vendor platforms. Arguably less "buggy". Free - including free software, free "support" via the net. Lots of additional software in the public domain in a form that builds easily with the X11R4 setup; note that this is not generally so for the OpenWindows setup. Con: no Display PostScript, no commercial support, no accelerator board support, sunview compatibility must be built yourself, no "pageview". Pro NeWS/X server: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Extensions available include Display PostScript allowing scalable fonts, etc. although "SHAPE" is unavailable in OW 2.0 despite Display PostScript in the base server!? "pageview" PostScript previewer as standard although "ghostscript", "xps" and "ralpage" are all public domain alternatives which run on the mit server. It is a commercial system thus you can demand commercial support. The server includes support for graphics accelerator boards plus server optimisation for Sun hardware. Easy compatibility for sunview applications. Con: memory/disk hog, no SHAPE extension, arguably buggier with slow turn-around times for bug fixes, must buy source, public domain software tough to build for OW, requires a higher spec machine, poor XDMCP support. ----- A number of people gave suggested "minimum configurations" for running OpenWindows - the consensus seemed to be a Sun3 with 8Mb or a Sun4 with 12Mb plus an appropriate graphics accelerator. ---- In summary, it would appear that the X/NeWS server is probably the server of choice for people who like to run "vendor-supplied software straight out of the box", who are happy to rely on Sun for software maintenance and who run only or mainly Sun hardware, preferably Sun4s with loadsamemory and graphics accelerator cards. On the other hand, the mit X11 server will appeal to those who don't mind "getting their hands dirty", who are happy to rely on the net, etc. for support and who regularly make use of public domain software. It would appear to be faster and less of a memory hog especially on Sun3s and machines lacking loadsamemory and "go-faster" boards. It is probably especially useful in environments running a wide range of machines from a wide range of vendors where a uniform system is required - important when trying to minimise the load on support staff and when trying to encourage use by novice users. =============================================================================== Steven Salvini 79 Grassmarket JANET steve@uk.ac.hw.cs Heriot-Watt University Internet steve%cs.hw.ac.uk@cunyvm.cuny.edu Computer Science NSFNET steve%cs.hw.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk EDINBURGH EH1 2HJ Scotland U.K. EARN/BITNET steve%cs.hw.ac.uk@UKACRL Phone (+44) 31 225 6465 (x455) UUCP steve%cs.hw.ac.uk@ukc.uucp