Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!dprg-330.GOVt.shearson.COM!fgreco
From: fgreco@dprg-330.GOVt.shearson.COM (Frank Greco)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: OW as a PostScript X server...
Message-ID: <9011121513.AA06367@islanders.>
Date: 12 Nov 90 15:13:15 GMT
Sender: daemon@athena.mit.edu (Mr Background)
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 47

> 
> 	And, no X extensions are involved; you're guaranteed to get PS
> 	rendering with OW.
> 
> That's right; you get it by involving a different world.  You first
> create an X window, then open a second socket to the NeWS side of the
> server, then pass the window-id of the X window across to the NeWS
> world, then do PostScript'ish things to the NeWS world, while doing
> X'y things to the X world.
> 
> Strikes me it would be "a good thing" to have a pseudo-Display
> PostScript extension to the OW server, so that a programmer could
> manipulate xnews just as they manipulate the DEC or IBM servers
> extended with real Display PostScript.  The way it is now, you have no
> hope of running your (two-world) program on anything but xnews.

	What's wrong with that?  Considering the current (and
	future) market that Sun and SPARC clones enjoy,
	that's not bad at all.  If you design your software decently
	enuf (talk about your basic Pandora's box statement...;-)...
	you should be able to localize dependencies in imaging for
	different targets.  The engineers at Frame did this.
	Ventura is doing the same with their product (GEM, MS Windows,
	PM, Mac and soon OpenLook versions).

	Should Borland stop marketing their Turbo line and TSR goodies
	because they "only run on PC's"?   Was it a bad idea for Lotus
	to initially write 123 in 80X86 assembly?  Is Bill Gates
	losing sleep due to Windows 3.0 "only" available on
	Intel-based machines?  Not by any stretch of the imagination
	are these products elegant...successful?...
	
> 
> Perhaps a "standard" extension for doing PostScript imaging is
> something the Consortium will address.
 
	Not to be redundant, but:

 	And, no X extensions are involved; you're guaranteed to get PS
 	rendering with OW.



	Frank G.
 
	And what are the ...gulp...legal (and financial) ramifications
	with Adobe in this matter?