Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!LIGHTNING.MCRCIM.MCGILL.EDU!mouse
From: mouse@LIGHTNING.MCRCIM.MCGILL.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Not impressed with MacX
Message-ID: <9012030339.AA05092@lightning.McRCIM.McGill.EDU>
Date: 3 Dec 90 03:39:02 GMT
Sender: daemon@athena.mit.edu (Mr Background)
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 67

> Problem: The Macintosh has a one-button mouse, but far too many X
> programs require a three-button mouse.  [That's why servers using
> mice with fewer than three buttons often fake the "missing" ones.]
> Der mouse [...] doesn't want to emulate "missing" mouse buttons:

>>> I wouldn't simulate them.  I would have the X server provide a
>>> pointer device with only one button.  That's what you have, after
>>> all.  Kludges to support broken clients that blindly assume the
>>> presence of (at least) three buttons on the pointer device only
>>> ensure that said broken clients don't get fixed.

> Unfortunately, from xterm on, just about every client that uses the
> mouse uses more than one button.

That doesn't mean they aren't broken.  To pick an analogy in another
realm, NULL is traditionally defined as 0, and much of the X code uses
it in contexts where integer 0 is desired.  Does this then mean that
NULL must always be 0?  No, it means that there's a lot of broken code
around.  See also the "all the world's a VAX" syndrome (which is now,
mercifully, beginning to fade away (to be replaced by "all the world's
an 8086 :-)).  (Try building X on a machine which has NULL defined as
(void *)0 and you'll see what I mean.)

For that matter, I have seen at least three X clients that break if you
don't use PointerRoot focus, in that if the mouse is not inside their
window they ignore keystrokes, even if the window manager has given the
keyboard focus to the window in question.  Shall we therefore require
all window managers to use PointerRoot focus?

Just because a given brokenness is widespread doesn't make it any less
broken.  And since I, unlike

>> We thought about this, briefly, very briefly. A quick poll of our
>> field convinced us that we we would never again sell an X product if
>> we were to adopt such an approach. The hard, ugly, X reality ( ;-) )
>> is dressed with 3 buttons.

>> X Project Leader
>> Apple Computer, Inc.

don't have a customer base that must be catered to no matter how
unreasonable they get, I can refuse to support such brokenness.  My
X11R4 on the NeXT presents a pointer device with only two buttons.  I
have received two different patches to implement the "missing" button
by chording the two existing buttons.  Neither one will go in (though I
will distribute them with the thing, once I get around to rebuilding
the distribution.)

In another note, someone from SGI said that it had the luxury of always
being on an 8-bit PseudoColor server with a 3-button mouse.  I can just
see programs from such a person[%] blindly assuming an 8-bit
PseudoColor visual as the default.  Does this then mean that all
servers must provide an 8-bit PseudoColor visual?  No, it means that
such programs are broken!

X has always promised the existence of a pointer device.  I'm not sure
whether it promises the existence of at least one pointer button.  It
has never promised more than one button.

[%] I don't remember who this person was, and don't mean this
    personally - I have no basis for judging the portability of your
    code, never having seen any of it.

					der Mouse

			old: mcgill-vision!mouse
			new: mouse@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu