rhealey@digibd.com (Rob Healey) (04/15/91)
In article <15785@smoke.brl.mil> gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes: >In article <128236@uunet.UU.NET> rbj@uunet.UU.NET (Root Boy Jim) writes: >>Another thing I hate about X is the protocol. > >To my mind the worst problem with X is that to get anything at all done, >two processes must communicate back and forth through the protocol >bottleneck. This inherently limits the interactivity attainable using >typical hardware (Sun workstations, for example) to levels below my >personal standards for interactive graphics. OK, I'll bite. WHERE is a window system that will run on all the systems X currently does, provides miraculous performance AND is easy to learn and for vendors to support? An answer will only count if it can run on as many different architectures and platforms as X, can be run over any 8 bit clean data stream and has all the functionality of X without all the bulk. I've heard ALOT of complaints about how bad X is, WHY doesn't anybody do something about it? I've tried MGR but it's pathetic functionality wise, small and fast yes, let's me do what I want to do easily, no. What other window systems are out there? Windows 3.x doesn't count 'cause it's just as bad or worse than X. Waiting for a small, fast, FUNCTIONALLY rich, window system to come slay the X monster, -Rob -- Rob Healey rhealey@digibd.com Digi International (DigiBoard) St. Louis Park, MN (612) 922-8055
mjr@hussar.dco.dec.com (Marcus J. Ranum) (04/17/91)
rhealey@digibd.com (Rob Healey) writes: > [...] if it can run on as many different architectures and > platforms as X, can be run over any 8 bit clean data stream > and has all the functionality of X without all the bulk. The requirement of "all the functionality of X" is open to debate. All of X's wonderful functionality is one reason some of us think it's a mess. mjr.
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (04/24/91)
In article <1991Apr15.000020.21915@digibd.com> rhealey@digibd.com (Rob Healey) writes: > OK, I'll bite. WHERE is a window system that will run on all > the systems X currently does, provides miraculous performance > AND is easy to learn and for vendors to support? Doesn't exist. Why? Because bad money drives out good. Where is the incentive to do a better job than X if it won't buy you anything. Even Sun has pretty much given up on NeWS (though why NeXT didn't polish NeWS instead of starting from scratch only Steve Jobs can explain). > I've heard ALOT of complaints about how bad X is, WHY doesn't > anybody do something about it? Sun did. Look where it got them. They've now gotta remain backwards compatible with 3 window systems. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"