melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (01/12/91)
In article <12048.278dfd95@ecs.umass.edu> gerst@ecs.umass.edu writes:
What is the REAL reason people are choosing X based systems over the NeXT?
Is there something I'm missing? What is running on X that everyone is using
other than Xterm, Xeyes and Backgammon :) ???
I would really like to know why NeXT is losing sales to a windowing environment
which is nothing more than a multi-session terminal for the majority of the
users.
Everything I've seen so far is "we have to run X", "we need X", "we bought
Sun's because they run X"... WHY?????
At Penn State we have VLSI tools like magic that run under X. The
great thing about X is that you can run a program on a Cray and have
it display on a Sun, Mac, etc(but not NeXT). X is here to stay.
Besides it's free and you can get source. Granted NeXTStep is much
better, but X is necessary.
-Mikewave@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Michael B. Johnson) (01/14/91)
In article <12048.278dfd95@ecs.umass.edu> gerst@ecs.umass.edu writes: >> >>What is the REAL reason people are choosing X based systems over the NeXT? >> >>Is there something I'm missing? What is running on X that everyone is using >>other than Xterm, Xeyes and Backgammon :) ??? >> >>Chris Lloyd - lloyd@ucs.umass.edu I was going to send mail, but I thought maybe others might be interested: I work at Thinking Machines in the summer. They make a real big and fast machine, the Connection Machine 2. One of the real challenges of a machine like that is how to get people to effectively integrate it into a heterogenous, multi-vendor network. We wrote some software last year called Generic Display to allow users to easily display datasets that were on the CM-2. Generic Display supports 3 sorts of displays: Symbolics Lispm Color Framebuffers, the CM-2's high bandwidth frame buffer, and X. Now, it's X that's the important one. We can now display pictures of what's going on inside the machine on virtually any other machine on the internet. Any machine running X, that is. To help someone debug some code last year, we had him run it on a CM-2 here in Cambridge and display his images on his workstation in Sweden. It worked! I could go on, but hopefully you see my point... It's not a NeXTStep vs. X thing. It's an interoperability thing. NeXT needs to do X, the same way it needs to do TCP/IP and NFS. -- --> Michael B. Johnson --> MIT Media Lab -- Computer Graphics & Animation Group --> (617) 253-0663 -- wave@media-lab.media.mit.edu
peterd@cs.mcgill.ca (Peter Deutsch) (01/14/91)
In article <F$=y*674@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >In article <12048.278dfd95@ecs.umass.edu> gerst@ecs.umass.edu writes: > > What is the REAL reason people are choosing X based systems over the NeXT? > > Is there something I'm missing? What is running on X that everyone is using > other than Xterm, Xeyes and Backgammon :) ??? . . . > Everything I've seen so far is "we have to run X", "we need X", "we bought > Sun's because they run X"... WHY????? > >At Penn State we have VLSI tools like magic that run under X. The >great thing about X is that you can run a program on a Cray and have >it display on a Sun, Mac, etc(but not NeXT). X is here to stay. > . . . And here at McGill we have a BBN GP-1000. This is a parallel machine (in our case with 16 68020 CPUs) that we use for teaching parallel programming. Our instructors are expected to integrate a parallel assignment or two into a number of our ugrad courses. The BBN has a very nice parallel debugger, one that allows programmers to monitor the various CPUs as they fire instruction. It is also capable of displaying not only program flow, but timing dependences among the various CPUs as they execute programs. The operation and output of the debugger is integrated into a GUI interface that runs on "almost any" standard workstation in an ethernet environment. The hitch? You got it. Your monitor must have TCP/IP and the X window system. Our new lab does not, at least until we get our version of X working under NeXTStep 2.0 or until someone else gives or sells it to us. I really don't care which it is. But the semester started last week and any minute people are going to start asking the obvious questions. And before anyone writes that I was silly to buy NeXTen if I wanted X, I have it in writing from them that NeXT plans to support X in some manner. I understood it may note be as a NeXT product, and as I said, I don't care. I was willing to help people write it for me, I was willing to pay someone a reasonable amount of money to do it for me, whatever. I just wanted NeXT to make clear what it was to be, so I could tell my boss tomorrow when he asks.... - peterd ^X ^I .signature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ +-------+ Peter Deutsch McGill University | u # u | peterd@cs.mcgill.ca School of Computer Science |/\/\/\/| | a a | "Well she turned me into a newt!" \ a / "A newt?" \___/ "I got better." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
glang@Autodesk.COM (Gary Lang) (01/14/91)
>At Penn State we have VLSI tools like magic that run under X. The
Great. "Now available at BusinessLand. magic, the VLSI tools for your
small or large business."
Repeat after me, "NeXT will potentially lose the sale of 5 computers
if it doesn't get aboard the X bandwagon". That was easy wasn't it?
-g
--
Gary T. Lang (415)332-2344 x2702
Autodesk, Inc.
Sausalito, CA.
MCI: 370-0730bb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian Bartholomew) (01/14/91)
In article <12048.278dfd95@ecs.umass.edu> gerst@ecs.umass.edu writes: > What is the REAL reason people are choosing X based systems over the > NeXT? Because the other several hundred multi-vendor computers at their site run X. Because they expect to continue to be able to purchase X-based products from a large number of vendors in the future. > Is there something I'm missing? What is running on X that everyone is > using other than Xterm, Xeyes and Backgammon :) ??? See above. > I would really like to know why NeXT is losing sales to a windowing > environment which is nothing more than a multi-session terminal for the > majority of the users. See above. > Everything I've seen so far is "we have to run X", "we need X", "we > bought Sun's because they run X"... WHY????? Because X is the first window system that has been implemented by a large percentage of workstation vendors. Because it was the first system that let users and managers get a taste of what "distributed computing" really meant and what it could do for you. There is nothing superior about X; in fact it reeks of device dependency and special cases, and just generally stinks. However, until NextStep is offered on more platforms that just two (well, really one and a half, as I hear most of the cool Next clients aren't delivered with the RS/6000), X will continue to hold sway. -- "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Bartholomew UUCP: ...gatech!uflorida!mathlab.math.ufl.edu!bb University of Florida Internet: bb@math.ufl.edu
bb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian Bartholomew) (01/14/91)
> The great thing about X is that you can run a program on a Cray and > have it display on a Sun, Mac, etc(but not NeXT). NextStep is network-transparent, too. -- "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Bartholomew UUCP: ...gatech!uflorida!mathlab.math.ufl.edu!bb University of Florida Internet: bb@math.ufl.edu
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (01/14/91)
In article <BB.91Jan13215041@reef.cis.ufl.edu> bb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian Bartholomew) writes: I said: > The great thing about X is that you can run a program on a Cray and > have it display on a Sun, Mac, etc(but not NeXT). NextStep is network-transparent, too. Only on other NeXT workstations. Not with a Cray, Connection Machine, Sun, IBM, HP, Data Generials,... Get the picture. Although it has been said before I'll say it again. No one is contending that X is better than NeXT Step, we're all saying that most existing environments are based on X, and they will continue to be based on X. -Mike
jacob@gore.com (Jacob Gore) (01/14/91)
/ comp.sys.next / glang@Autodesk.COM (Gary Lang) / Jan 13, 1991 / > Great. "Now available at BusinessLand. magic, the VLSI tools for your > small or large business." > > Repeat after me, "NeXT will potentially lose the sale of 5 computers > if it doesn't get aboard the X bandwagon". That was easy wasn't it? I wish it were so. My father is considering buying a computer to run AutoCAD on. There are more than 5 people in the world using AutoCAD, as you may know. I don't know which window system Autodesk used on the Suns--is it X? If it isn't, and if they are considering another platform, I bet it will be something X-based. I asked around about a NeXT port, and unless things at Autodesk have changed very recently, the answer is "Want it on a workstation? Buy a Sun." Jacob -- Jacob Gore Jacob@Gore.Com boulder!gore!jacob
matthews@lewhoosh.umd.edu (Mike Matthews) (01/15/91)
In article <BB.91Jan13215041@reef.cis.ufl.edu> bb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian Bartholomew) writes: >NextStep is network-transparent, too. >Brian Bartholomew UUCP: ...gatech!uflorida!mathlab.math.ufl.edu!bb Yes, but look at how it's done. You have to open up your NeXT so you have one very big security hole staring you right in the face. EVERY computer can access your screen etc., or none can. At least X has the xhost command. ------ Mike Matthews, matthews@lewhoosh.umd.edu (NeXT)/matthews@umdd (bitnet) ------ Do what comes naturally now. Seethe and fume and throw a tantrum.
lacsap@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Pascal Chesnais) (01/15/91)
In article <Fk4tjx84@cs.psu.edu>, melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > Only on other NeXT workstations. Not with a Cray, Connection Machine, > Sun, IBM, HP, Data Generials,... Get the picture. Although it has ^^^ > been said before I'll say it again. No one is contending that X is > better than NeXT Step, we're all saying that most existing > environments are based on X, and they will continue to be based on X. > > -Mike IBM announced that they will support NextStep on their R6000 platform. pasc -- Pascal Chesnais, Research Specialist, Electronic Publishing Group Media Laboratory, E15-348, 20 Ames Street, Cambridge, Ma, 02139 (617) 253-0311 email: lacsap@plethora.media.mit.edu (NeXT)
dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) (01/15/91)
In article <130142@gore.com> jacob@gore.com (Jacob Gore) writes: >My father is considering buying a computer to run AutoCAD on. There are >more than 5 people in the world using AutoCAD, as you may know. I don't >know which window system Autodesk used on the Suns--is it X? No, it isn't X. And I think to say "I bet the next one will be X" isn't terribly germaine to the question of "what is so wonderful about X?" Let ME enumerate the applications I've seen on the dozen or so X-running machines my coworkers have: 1. XTerm 2. XEyes 3. XWeather (a locally written weather map program) 4. Xrn 5. Xbiff 6. Xroot (sp?) (pretty background pictures) Yawn. I have to agree with the original poster; by far and away most X users *I see* are using Xterm just about exclusively, which is handled quite nicely on the NeXT by Shell and rlogin. Or by a Macintosh with uw, for that matter. -- Steve Dorner, U of Illinois Computing Services Office Internet: s-dorner@uiuc.edu UUCP: uunet!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!s-dorner
toon@vax1.sara.nl (01/15/91)
In article <12048.278dfd95@ecs.umass.edu>, gerst@ecs.umass.edu writes: > [...] > Is there something I'm missing? What is running on X that everyone is using > other than Xterm, Xeyes and Backgammon :) ??? crayperf. (well, everyone ... .-) > [...] > Chris Lloyd - lloyd@ucs.umass.edu -- Toon Moene, SARA - Amsterdam (NL) Internet: TOON@SARA.NL /usr/lib/sendmail.cf: Do.:%@!=/
waltrip@capd.jhuapl.edu (01/15/91)
In article <1991Jan14.203145.25575@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) writes: > In article <130142@gore.com> jacob@gore.com (Jacob Gore) writes: >>My father is considering buying a computer to run AutoCAD on. There are >>more than 5 people in the world using AutoCAD, as you may know. I don't >>know which window system Autodesk used on the Suns--is it X? > > No, it isn't X. And I think to say "I bet the next one will be X" > isn't terribly germaine to the question of "what is so wonderful about X?" Question is not "what is so wonderful about X?" but why X? There ARE some good features about X but I don't believe anyone reading this newsgroup cares other than to be fair (e.g., the poster who noted that the security of xhost might be better than the choice of noone or everyone having access). The only reason I can recall anyone posting here has given for wanting X for NeXT is so s/he can GET a NeXT. And the reason this is a determining factor is because X applications are available and in use. > > Let ME enumerate the applications I've seen on the dozen or so X-running > machines my coworkers have: > > 1. XTerm > 2. XEyes > 3. XWeather (a locally written weather map program) > 4. Xrn > 5. Xbiff > 6. Xroot (sp?) (pretty background pictures) > > Yawn. In our place, we have DECwrite, DECchart, DECdecision and Cadre CASE tools. Some of the DEC editors and the DEC debugger have an X (DECwindows) interface. Other CASE tools (e.g., Software Through Pictures) are available through X. From my VAX/VMS workstation, I can access Mathematica on an ULTRIX system via X. Via X, I can access Frame running on a UNIX workstation. Many accounting packages and database front ends are available with X interfaces. Network monitoring software with X interfaces are also available (and, if you're not careful, may account for a lot of the network activity you're monitoring:^) If I had a NeXT with an X server, I could access this investment in software when I had to but could also enjoy the unique benefits of NeXTstep (and everybody else could see what I could do that they couldn't and then THEY might start hollering for NeXTs and then pretty soon X might disappear). I guess the moral of this story is: if you really want to see X die, push to make it available on NeXTs as soon as possible:^) > > I have to agree with the original poster; by far and away most X users > *I see* are using Xterm just about exclusively, which is handled quite > nicely on the NeXT by Shell and rlogin. Or by a Macintosh with uw, for > that matter. Xterm (or DECterm) are used quite a lot here too; but everyone uses the GUI when s/he can (that is, when an application permits). > -- > Steve Dorner, U of Illinois Computing Services Office > Internet: s-dorner@uiuc.edu UUCP: uunet!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!s-dorner c.f.waltrip DDN: waltrip@capsrv.jhuapl.edu Opinions expressed are my own.
dlw@Atherton.COM (David Williams) (01/15/91)
To Gary Lang and Eric P. Scott, Realize that we all want NeXT to be successfull. Those who advocate the existence of an X server in some form on NeXT wish to see them make it by the check-list folks at most businesses/institutions. >>In article <2013@autodesk.COM>, glang@Autodesk.COM (Gary Lang) writes: >>At Penn State we have VLSI tools like magic that run under X. The >Great. "Now available at BusinessLand. magic, the VLSI tools for your >small or large business." "Now available at Businessland. SoftPC, the MS-DOS emulator for your small or large business. Available for most major Unix boxes, Macintosh and the NeXT machines." >Repeat after me, "NeXT will potentially lose the sale of 5 computers >if it doesn't get aboard the X bandwagon". That was easy wasn't it? I would assume that there are more university/research sales that would be lost from NOT having X than just the "5" you infer. Notice Apple has X on its Macintosh line. Of course they won't sell tons o' copies of it. But, it IS a checklist item and getting machines on the ol' approved list is a big part of the battle. NCSA telnet helped a great number of people connect to boxes on TCP/IP based networks in the macintosh community...An X windows server would do the same for those of us who work in heterogeneous unix based network worlds. In this case NeXT isn't even being asked to write it or port it, but rather to help support a NeXT customer who is making it FREELY available. >Gary T. Lang Repeat after me, we live in a multivendor world. Let's see who the dominant players are in the unix marketplace: Sun--runs X. IBM--runs X. DEC--runs X (on both VMS and Ultrix). HP--runs X. SCO[unix on intel]--runs X. Even Apple runs X (on both Mac OS and A/UX). If you work a company that develops UNIX tools and runs on unix workstations then all those hardware vendors support The X Window system. They also support TCP/IP, NFS and other *NETWORKING* technologies. Now NeXT, the company, can certainly create and market their own proprietary networking products that are an improvement over existing technologies and we might applaud them for doing so. However, would you use a NeXT in a business and academic environment where you were *ISOLATED* from the rest of the world? Perhaps yes, if you had zero investment in other unix boxes, had NO interest in transfering existing information from the computing platforms you currently have or in communicating with said platforms. You'll notice that NeXT DOES support NFS, TCP/IP and other unix standards. Think of the X Window System as just more of the same. Also realize that most new unix tools today are being built with a X based interface. If you would like to use a NeXT workstation as your gateway to all your work you are stymied by the lack of a working X window server if you are unix based. Companies and institutions DO have investments in equipment other than NeXT... most assuredly Universities do. To be the interpersonal computer company--implies that you COMMUNICATE--just as you like sharing file systems with nfs, how about sharing applications, interfaces and machine resources via TCP/IP and X Windows? I would think that SF State and AutoDesk might have more than just NeXTstations. I would think that from time to time you might want or have to use a program that is not yet ported to the Next machine. If it is X based you can't do it across the network from your NeXT box..you have to go to a box that runs X. Well guess what, there is a group of people who will give you this for FREE, all they need is a few minutes/hours of answers from NeXT and away we go. Seems pretty reasonable to me... Course I guess I'm one of those "suckers" who just wants to have X on my cube (*I* bought my cube) so I can do the work I am paid for AND start to develop new products in the NeXTStep environment. David Williams dlw@atherton.com
romero@parc.xerox.com (Antonio Romero) (01/16/91)
In article <BB.91Jan13215041@reef.cis.ufl.edu> bb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian Bartholomew) writes: >> The great thing about X is that you can run a program on a Cray and >> have it display on a Sun, Mac, etc(but not NeXT). >NextStep is network-transparent, too. Has anyone ever implemented a client that talks to NeXTStep over the network that wasn't running on a NeXT itself? Also, could companies or individuals who weren't themselves NeXT users be persuaded to do this until NeXTStep reaches the kind of volume that X has? -Antonio Romero romero@arisia.xerox.com
glang@Autodesk.COM (Gary Lang) (01/17/91)
dorner says: >>more than 5 people in the world using AutoCAD, as you may know. I don't >>know which window system Autodesk used on the Suns--is it X? >No, it isn't X. To which I say, who are you to make this statement and what are y9ou basing your info on? Of course we use it. But we don't use IT we use the SunView and XView toolkits because that's what Sun uses. If NeWS had won we'd use that. We don't care; X wasn't the reason for doing a product anymore than the chip that they used... All the same I agree with your conclusion 100%. - g -- Gary T. Lang (415)332-2344 x2702 Autodesk, Inc. Sausalito, CA. MCI: 370-0730
glang@Autodesk.COM (Gary Lang) (01/17/91)
> However IBM paid well for the technology transfer that made NeXTstep >possible. Really? How much? -- Gary T. Lang (415)332-2344 x2702 Autodesk, Inc. Sausalito, CA. MCI: 370-0730
rca@cs.brown.edu (Ronald C.F. Antony) (01/19/91)
In article <Fk4tjx84@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >better than NeXT Step, we're all saying that most existing >environments are based on X, and they will continue to be based on X. Most existing environments are based on Quick and Dirty Operating System, alias QDOS alias MS-DOS alias PC-DOS. And you can even have 17-Mips on such a machine, and all sorts of incompatible add-on cards and 123 and ... Who cares? I like my honest 15Mips and DPS better than any cludgy desing offered by some other companies. You always have the choice between being compatible or being better. NeXT chooses to be the latter. Ronald ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." G.B. Shaw | rca@cs.brown.edu or antony@browncog.bitnet
dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) (01/24/91)
In article <2095@autodesk.COM> glang@Autodesk.COM (Gary Lang) writes: >>>more than 5 people in the world using AutoCAD, as you may know. I don't >>>know which window system Autodesk used on the Suns--is it X? >>No, it isn't X. >To which I say, who are you to make this statement and what are y9ou >basing your info on? I work with a customer of yours who tried to run AutoCAD from her X terminal, and was told "sorry, you gotta be running SunView", or words to that effect. Perhaps she has an old version. Perhaps AutoCAD simply won't work over the network with X (what *was* the X crowd crowing about?). All I know is it didn't work for her when she tried it in the obvious manner, and I drew the obvious conclusion. I guess I should have written: Our version of AutoCAD won't work on our X terminals, so what good is it to us even if AutoCAD "uses" X? It might as well be completely proprietary. -- Steve Dorner, U of Illinois Computing Services Office Internet: s-dorner@uiuc.edu UUCP: uunet!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!s-dorner