[comp.windows.open-look] X is/isn't faulty

fgreco@govt.shearson.com (Frank Greco) (04/19/91)

> > Device independence?  Hogwash!  Unlike NeWS, the interpreter is in
> > the wrong place.
> 
> Partially agreed.  For many applications the ability to download code
> into the server would be a major win; the real problem is that the
> resulting system is much heavier weight.  (If you don't agree, where
> are all the NeWS-terminals?  X-terminals are selling left and right.)

	The reason for X-terminals is the perceived standardization
	of X not for weighty-ness of the server.  Granted, its more difficult to 
	build a NeWS-terminal (actually an XNeWS terminal is more correct
	since the Sun server offers both...), but if it was commercially profitable
	it *would* be done.  At this point in time, most terminal vendors
	would rather not do it as they believe it is not profitable.
> 
> > Yeah the server swaps bytes, but the client must use the server's
> > pixel sizes, colormaps, etc.
> 
> This is orthogonal to your previous sentence.  X made the right choice
> when they specified all coordinates in terms of pixels: until pixels
> are too small to see, you don't want a pixel-independent protocol
> language.  (Which is one reason I don't like PostScript-only printers.)

	But very small pixels are here.  There are several vendors that
	are selling 300 dpi monitors... they're expensive ($10K), but they *are*
	available.  What happens when your X-based interface runs on that?
	I hope you have xmag running .... ;-)

	I'd rather have the server handle the device-independence than
	my apps.  I have other things to worry about than that (like does
	the app do what its supposed to do....)

	Of course, there are certain classes of apps that want to deal with 
	pixels, but the *vast* majority of apps don't care.

	Frank G.