Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!apple!uokmax!servalan!rmtodd
From: rmtodd@servalan.uucp (Richard Todd)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Not impressed with MacX
Message-ID: <1990Nov30.153151.14120@servalan.uucp>
Date: 30 Nov 90 15:31:51 GMT
References: <9011290612.AA00580@lightning.McRCIM.McGill.EDU>
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Lines: 92

mouse@LIGHTNING.MCRCIM.MCGILL.EDU writes:

>> It's certainly appreciated by me: I use MacX under A/UX and keep the
>> preferences file in an NFS volume.  With the (R)display option I can
>> use the same MacX setup no matter which machine I'm logged into,
>> instead of having to switch setups for each mac.

>Seems to be xinit should put hostname:0 (or something similar) into the
>DISPLAY environment variable.

>What, no xinit analog?  No hostname either?  No $DISPLAY analog, even?
>Gosh you Apple owners have an advanced system....

  Well, MacX was written for MacOS, which by the standards you and I use
doesn't even come close to being an advanced operating system :-).  It 
is interesting that, even for those using MacX under A/UX, they don't 
have some sort of xinit equivalent (or just have the standard xinit with 
a config file setup to launch MacX, since it *is* possible to start up MacOS
programs under A/UX from the shell prompt...)  

>I wouldn't expect to.  That's a window manager function; I expect to
>control it by telling the *window manager* things, not by telling the
>*client* things!

  Alas, they seem to be providing by default that is just as configurable as
is the standard window management facilities of MacOS -- i.e., not at all.  

>>> Then there are the multiple screens.  The default in MacX is
>>> [rootless - X windows are Mac windows].  To run an X window manager,
>>> you need a root window, which is one big Apple window which all the
>>> others get put in.  If you really do have multiple screens attached
>>> to your Mac, they are treated as one big screen and cannot be
>>> referred to individually.
>> Again, how would you prefer things to be arranged?

>How about the way everybody else does it?  You start the X server, it
>takes over your screen, keyboard, and mouse, and there you are.  No
>fash with a root window that is actually inside a Mac window, or is
>partly invisible because of multiple monitors, or doesn't even exist.
>(Multiple monitors should be separate screens.  If the hardware
>differs, they should offer visuals with different capabilities.)

Ah.  Well, they obviously could have done this that way, but evidently one
of the design goals of MacX is that it *doesn't* take over the screen--you
still have access to those MacOS applications that are still running and
can "see" them (and, if necessary, click on their windows and interact with
them).  (Rumour has it that they even manage to support cut-and-paste
between X applications and MacOS ones properly; that sounds like a
decidedly non-trivial bit of programming...)  This simultaneous access
pretty much demands that you have the individual X windows appear as MacOS
windows and handled by a MacOS-style window manager; the "root window"
approach is evidently a concession for those Wrong Thinkers who stubbornly
prefer to use twm, etc., instead of the MacOS style of window management.

>> The MIT X11 server [...].

>There's an MIT X11 server for the Mac?  Where and how can one get it?

Same place as you get MIT X11 for a Sun, etc. : expo.lcs.mit.edu or other
friendly archive site that has the X11R4 distribution.  Of course, the 
X11R4 distribution only will compile under Unix (A/UX) and not MacOS, and
can't share the screen with MacOS.  But if (like me) you think a Mac without
Unix is just an overpriced paperweight, and you only use MacOS applications
on rare occasions, it's terrific.  (As it happens, I'm running MIT X11R4
and writing this message with Epoch right now on my Mac IIx....)
  I should mention here that Apple also sells their own X11R4 package for
A/UX, which reportedly includes some internal Consortium bug fixes that won't
make it out publically until X11R5 (whenever that materializes) plus assorted
speedups; it's also a good deal for those who aren't up to or don't have the
disk space to compile MIT X11R4 themselves.

>> My only gripe about the keyboard is the brain-damaged policy of
>> putting meta on the uparrow key instead of on option (where it is in
>> the MIT server); this causes me no end of grief with emacs.  It would
>> be very nice if this were a configurable option instead of the only
>> game in town.

>Good heavens, can't you xmodmap it back to something saner?

Dunno, but I will add a small correction of fact: meta isn't mapped to the
option key under MIT X11R4; it's mapped to the "Command" key, whose
function is already spoken for under MacOS.

In summary, I'd like to say this: MacX certainly looks like it has a good deal
of what we Unix X types would call braindamage.  But given that it has to work
under a thouroughly braindamaged operating system, and that the design goal
was to make X applications fit in well with the MacOS environment, they 
probably did as good a job as one has any hope to expect.  
--
Richard Todd	rmtodd@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu  rmtodd@chinet.chi.il.us
	rmtodd@servalan.uucp
"Cancelling a posted message means posting a cancel message."-Maarten Litmaath