Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!caen!uflorida!bikini!bb From: bb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian Bartholomew) Newsgroups: comp.sys.next Subject: Re: Novel Software Distribution Ideas Message-ID: Date: 7 Feb 91 01:19:03 GMT References: <1991Feb5.084512.26648@Neon.Stanford.EDU> <1045@kaos.MATH.UCLA.EDU> <1991Feb6.080837.26500@evax.arl.utexas.edu> <1991Feb6.112300.27353@Neon.Stanford.EDU> Sender: news@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU Organization: /cis/lightning0/bb/.organization Lines: 24 In-reply-to: zimmer@calvin.stanford.edu's message of 6 Feb 91 11:23:00 GMT In article <1991Feb6.112300.27353@Neon.Stanford.EDU> zimmer@calvin.stanford.edu (Andrew Zimmerman) writes: > I am still curious if Pencom's X will support Display Postscript. ie, > some of the Dec Xwindow clients need a server that supports Display > Postscript. Let me get this straight - you want to run a program that produces PostScript - and you want to send it to a program that intreprets X into PostScript, and also allows PostScript to be sent directly? Why don't you just port the darned thing into Display PostScript, and be done with it? The DPS extentions were put into the DEC X server as an acknowledgment that X is cruddy and insufficient - why not remove all the association with X entirely? -- "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Bartholomew UUCP: ...gatech!uflorida!mathlab.math.ufl.edu!bb University of Florida Internet: bb@math.ufl.edu