Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!hpcc01!hpbbn!hpbbi4!stefan
From: stefan@hpbbi4.BBN.HP.COM (#Stefan Bachert)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: Is there an X-Client for the ST?
Message-ID: <510010@hpbbi4.BBN.HP.COM>
Date: 21 Aug 90 07:03:07 GMT
References: <Aug.6.10.26.18.1990.22939@aramis.rutgers.edu>
Organization: Hewlett-Packard GmbH
Lines: 29

/ hpbbi4:comp.sys.atari.st / stefan@hpbbi4.BBN.HP.COM (#Stefan Bachert) / 10:19 am  Aug 20, 1990 /
/ hpbbi4:comp.sys.atari.st / koreth@panarthea.ebay.sun.com (Steven Grimm) /  1:25 am  Aug 10, 1990 /

>> I can't help, but I think you both mean "server," not "client."  An X server
>> is the program which accepts drawing commands and puts a display up on your
>> screen.  X clients are the programs which send the drawing commands to the
>> server.

>No, the vice versa is true.
>The SERVER run the program
>The CLIENT is just the DISPLAY.

I have to correct myself. I was told the X Manual stated the opposite.
So Steven Grimm was correct.

Anyway this name convention isn't intuive.
In general a server offers a service. A client uses this services.
(Think in fileservers, diskless cluster, ..)
X Manual thinks SERVER as offering a DISPLAY.
As user I am thinking in cpu-power, compiling, calculating, wordprocessing.
In X convention any dump terminal at any computer is a DISPLAY-SERVER
while the computer itself is its CLIENT.

So I am not glad about that convention. 
But convention doesn't need to be senseful or intelligent.

Thank you for correcting me

Stefan