Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!mit-eddie!mintaka!spdcc!tauxersvilli!alphalpha!nazgul
From: nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: A tirade about inefficient software & systems
Message-ID: <1990Nov7.170826.10967@alphalpha.com>
Date: 7 Nov 90 17:08:26 GMT
References: <9011051527.AA03775@armory>
Organization: asi
Lines: 24

In article <9011051527.AA03775@armory> jimf@SABER.COM writes:
>As for X versus other windowing environments, the X distributed
>approach is a good one so long as network bandwidth is high.  Other

I might as well put my two cents in here.  I think that X was adopted
because people desperately needed a portable graphics substrate that
was freely available.  But I really wish it wasn't a networked
window system.  I see very little that can be gained from networking
graphics that couldn't be done more efficiently using RPC and other
protocols at higher levels of abstraction. And without the networking
issues to get in the way the issues of efficiency would largely be
moot.

I realize it isn't that easy to discard.  You would have to do a
number of things very differently, but I think it would have significantly
lessened the memory and CPU requirements that X imposes.
-- 
Alphalpha Software, Inc.	|	motif-request@alphalpha.com
nazgul@alphalpha.com		|-----------------------------------
617/646-7703 (voice/fax)	|	Proline BBS: 617/641-3722

I'm not sure which upsets me more; that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.