Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!cs.umn.edu!quest!digibd!rhealey
From: rhealey@digibd.com (Rob Healey)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals
Subject: Re: X sucks (was: Re: Ware Ware Wizardjin)
Message-ID: <1991Apr15.000020.21915@digibd.com>
Date: 15 Apr 91 00:00:20 GMT
References: <9104072151.AA28702@gaia> <128236@uunet.UU.NET> <15785@smoke.brl.mil>
Organization: DigiBoard Incorporated, St. Louis Park, MN
Lines: 32

In article <15785@smoke.brl.mil> gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>In article <128236@uunet.UU.NET> rbj@uunet.UU.NET (Root Boy Jim) writes:
>>Another thing I hate about X is the protocol.
>
>To my mind the worst problem with X is that to get anything at all done,
>two processes must communicate back and forth through the protocol
>bottleneck.  This inherently limits the interactivity attainable using
>typical hardware (Sun workstations, for example) to levels below my
>personal standards for interactive graphics.

	OK, I'll bite. WHERE is a window system that will run on all
	the systems X currently does, provides miraculous performance
	AND is easy to learn and for vendors to support? An answer will
	only count if it can run on as many different architectures and
	platforms as X, can be run over any 8 bit clean data stream
	and has all the functionality of X without all the bulk.

	I've heard ALOT of complaints about how bad X is, WHY doesn't
	anybody do something about it? I've tried MGR but it's pathetic
	functionality wise, small and fast yes, let's me do what I want
	to do easily, no. What other window systems are out there?
	Windows 3.x doesn't count 'cause it's just as bad or worse than X.

	Waiting for a small, fast, FUNCTIONALLY rich, window system
	to come slay the X monster,

		-Rob
-- 

Rob Healey                                          rhealey@digibd.com
Digi International (DigiBoard)
St. Louis Park, MN                                  (612) 922-8055