Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!know!samsung!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!srcsip!pokey!engstrom
From: engstrom@SRC.Honeywell.COM (Eric Engstrom)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: XWindows W11 Release 4
Message-ID: <92180@srcsip.UUCP>
Date: 19 Sep 90 17:06:59 GMT
References: <2241@opus.cs.mcgill.ca>
Sender: news@src.honeywell.COM
Lines: 50
In-reply-to: peterd@opus.cs.mcgill.ca's message of 19 Sep 90 05:23:02 GMT

In article <2241@opus.cs.mcgill.ca> peterd@opus.cs.mcgill.ca (Peter Deutsch) writes:
>[stuff deleted...]
> >      As one example of this, McGill is currently working  on
> > porting  X11  Release  4  of Xwindows to the NeXT machine.
> > [...]
> So there, X 11 Release 4 IS RUNNING ON THE NeXT!
>
> As for status, I have the best hacker at McGill working on
> the port for me, he has a working server and basically all
> the other bits of XWindows compiled and running
> in conjuction with NeXTStep 1.0a.  There are a few little
> bugs, but the grunt work is done for the "draft" version.
> Imagine Xeyes on a NeXT, with black background, no borders,
> in a dark, unlit office. It looks sexy! :-)
>
> [stuff about how X is being done on the NeXT - deleted...]


Sounds good, but I've got a question...

While I use X (11 rel. 4) on Suns of various denominations (in definite
preference to Sun-Tools), I wonder the use of X on a NeXT.  

Admittedly, X has a large software "base", provides environment
homogeneity among different machine types, and is free & well supported,
but in terms of usability of the environment, I would still rather use
NeXTStep on a NeXT.  I'm sure this "usability" stems in part from simply
being on a NeXT (machine and environment built together), but if IBM can
port NeXTStep, why couldn't NeXTStep be ported to other machines
(ignoring the licensing problem)

I didn't post this to start a flame-war about the benefits of PD
software (personally, I think groups like the X-Consortium and FSF are
great! :-), but I'm just curious about how people would/will use X on
the NeXT.

(email me the flames and spare the group.)

Eric

(--- Disclaimer:  The opinions contained within are entirely my own and 
(---              do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
(---   (but I didn't have to sign any non-disclosure agreement for them.)

+---------
Eric Engststrom, Honeywell SRC		   | [While most peoples' 
ARPA:  engstrom@src.honeywell.com	   |   opinions change, the 
UUCP:  {umn-cs,ems,bthpyd}!srcsip!engstrom |   conviction of their 
MAIL:  3660 Technology Drive, Mpls, MN     |   correctness never does]
Phone: (612) 782-7318                      |