Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!csus.edu!ucdavis!csusac!unify!unify.com!raveling
From: raveling@unify.com (Paul Raveling)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Why do so many "great" people dislike X?
Message-ID: <1990Sep4.180100@unify.com>
Date: 5 Sep 90 01:01:00 GMT
References: <9009041354.AA03267@armory> <1990Sep4.202433.19653@wrl.dec.com>
Sender: news@Unify.Com (news admin)
Reply-To: raveling@unify.com (Paul Raveling)
Organization: Unify Corporation, Sacramento, CA, USA
Lines: 28

In article <1990Sep4.202433.19653@wrl.dec.com>, kent@gilroy.pa.dec.com
(Christopher A. Kent) writes:
> 
> Jim Fulton says that X's worst failing is probably its dependency on
the
> pixel as the base unit. I'd be tempted to agree, ...

	For a different perspective, my view of X's biggest problem
	is its complexity, most of which follows from the basic
	design goal of making it policy-free.

	I believe the ideal window system would use a fair bit more
	encapsulation of policy to keep the client interfaces clean,
	while still providing adequate handles to override important
	aspects of default policy.

	A particular stumbling block is implementing policy through
	a separate window manager process, which adds some heavy burdens
	in communication and synchronization among client processes,
	the display server, and the window manager.  I think a better
	way to do this is to make policy arbitration a central
	module within the main display server process, more like a
	ddx component than a client program.


------------------
Paul Raveling
Raveling@unify.com