Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!news.cs.indiana.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!milo.mcs.anl.gov!atlantis.ees.anl.gov!korp From: korp@atlantis.ees.anl.gov (Peter Korp) Newsgroups: comp.windows.news Subject: Re: OpenWindows and V.4 Message-ID: <1990Nov6.235337.14480@mcs.anl.gov> Date: 6 Nov 90 23:53:37 GMT References: <1990Nov6.050506.605@mcs.anl.gov> Sender: news@mcs.anl.gov Distribution: comp.windows.news Organization: Advanced Computer Application Center, Argonne National Laboratory Lines: 47 Nntp-Posting-Host: atlantis.ees.anl.gov In article janssen@parc.xerox.com (Bill Janssen) writes: >Well, one interesting reason people might not want to support the Open >Windows xnews server is that it is neither "just X" nor "just NeWS". >If people start writing programs that take advantage of, say, being >able to render PostScript in an X window, or doing rubber-banding in >the server, that program won't run on any other X server or X terminal >(pity that there isn't a Display-PostScript interface to the NeWS side >of the server; that would make DEC & IBM & Sun X servers compatible). > Hmmmm...... This logic is flawed from the start. Firstly, for anyone writing an OpenWindows program that used the NeWS extensions it WOULD run on any OpenWindows system. Instead of being defined as an extension it is an integral part of OpenWindows. As a day to day example, if I have a Super VHS VCR should I only record programs in standard VHS because VHS is the most standard? I would think not, as any SVHS VCR would be able to play my tapes. At some point inovation must not be stifled, downward compatability is a good thing. An interesting experiment would be to write a simple app that converts X-DP packets to something NeWS can understand. I think it would show the inherent performance advantage of NeWS to X with Display PostScript. BTW.. Your logic would conclude "don't write anything but Xt code" as all other toolkits and server extensions are unknown. That is where OpenWindows wins big, PostScript, true circular windows, shared memory windows, etc.. are all a STANDARD part of OW, not an extension. >And AT&T might have legitimate business reasons for not wanting to >promote a system that could lock applications into a "non-standard" >interface server. > If AT&T were to promote the OpenWindows server it would be a "standard". V.4 licensees represent, I think, the majority of systems out there. >Bill >-- > Bill Janssen janssen@parc.xerox.com (415) 494-4763 > Xerox Palo Alto Research Center > 3333 Coyote Hill Road, Palo Alto, California 94304 Ultimately, if you want it is possible to restrain oneself and write just X or NeWS code, thus making it portable but uninteresting. Peter