Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!mit-eddie!bloom-beacon!mcgill-vision!quiche!opus!peterd From: peterd@opus.cs.mcgill.ca (Peter Deutsch) Newsgroups: comp.sys.next Subject: Re: XWindows W11 Release 4 Summary: Why X? Why not? Message-ID: <2253@opus.cs.mcgill.ca> Date: 20 Sep 90 00:02:35 GMT References: <2241@opus.cs.mcgill.ca> <92180@srcsip.UUCP> Organization: SOCS, McGill University, Montreal, Canada Lines: 108 In article <92180@srcsip.UUCP>, engstrom@SRC.Honeywell.COM (Eric Engstrom) writes: > In article <2241@opus.cs.mcgill.ca> peterd@opus.cs.mcgill.ca (Peter Deutsch) writes: [ my stuff on X 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. I'd like to say a word or two about this, as the whole issue of X availability was a big one when we were researching our purchase. We are part of a global community of educational institutions, who have collectively produced an incredible environment (the Internet, workstations, Gigabytes of archive servers, Usenet, etc). One of the things that makes all that work is interoperability at the machine level. We don't all run the same hardware, but we keep in mind that whatever we do might have to be ported to some pretty bizarre hardware. Sooo, when I started evaluating workstations (we obtained demos for IBM, Sun, Dec, Data General, Solbourne, Silicon Graphics) we tried several things. We have a whole directory full of P.D. tools and other software that we ported to each machine (or tried, in some cases). We brought over our editors, our UNIX filters, etc. The usual stuff, less, lc, etc. For the record, the NeXTen matched Sun pound for pound on this, better than virtually every other machine. As our primary machines are Sun now, Sun's supremacy was expected. The NeXT performance, although with some problems, surprised and pleased me. As part of fitting into this environment, we pretty much have to accept the supremacy of XWindows. We _don't_ have to endorse the design, but _everyone_ (with the obvious exception of NeXT) had a commitment to it when we started. Frankly it was their major "hit". They had networks, they had UNIX (well Mach, but it really does look like Berkely), they had neat extras like the DSP chip. They had an Object oriented environment, etc. But they didn't have X, and everyone else we deal with did. As part of our negotiations, we received assurances (in writing) from NeXT that this would be addressed. On the strength of this, and given the advantages of the machines they were quoting us (over 50 of the ones announced yesterday, plus eight cubes to make opticals available to anyone that wants it and to give us colour) we went NeXT. Fortunately for me, I am not stuck waiting for NeXT to follow through (although I have no reason to think they wont). I had access to a guy who would do the port for me as a challenge. I'm glad he did, as we now have that much bigger a collection of P.D. stuff to run and our students will be exposed to this obviously important standard. Of course, as I outlined in my previous posting, our server should be able to co-exist with NeXTstep, which gives us the best of both worlds. Sort of like Solbourne's X server, which will emulate either Motif or Open Look by selection as a command line switch. We have greater flexibility to go with the world when we must, but have a nice interface, with some neat features when we want. For what it's worth, I don't actually care if my buttons are round or square, my scroll bars on the left or the right. I like _ALL_ the options. With X on the machine, the one thing I felt they were missing is fixed. Those waiting for Cobol can't say that, but I can. Note that if I was buying 50 or 60 machines for an office, I would have a different analysis, but I might even come to the same conclusions. In any event, _we_ needed it so we did it. If you want it, it should be ready soon. If you don't, have fun with Improv. - peterd ^X ^I .signature -------------------------------------------------------------------------- +-------+ Peter Deutsch McGill University | u # u | peterd@cs.mcgill.ca School of Computer Science |/\/\/\/| | a a | "From MAILER-DAEMON@hq.demos.su Thu Sep 13 00:45:55 MSD 1990" \ a / \___/ The day we made contact.... -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Look! I can type after the signature!