Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!mahendo!wlbr!roger.imsd.contel.com!mh
From: mh@roger.imsd.contel.com (Mike Hoegeman)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals
Subject: Re: X11 bashing
Message-ID: <1991Apr18.214335.10292@wlbr.imsd.contel.com>
Date: 18 Apr 91 21:43:35 GMT
References: <1991Apr17.194141.17315@wlbr.imsd.contel.com> <14875@helios.TAMU.EDU> <1991Apr18.014319.8272@decuac.dec.com>
Sender: news@wlbr.imsd.contel.com (news)
Organization: Contel FSD, Westlake Village, CA
Lines: 21
Nntp-Posting-Host: roger.imsd.contel.com

In article <1991Apr18.014319.8272@decuac.dec.com> mjr@hussar.dco.dec.com (Marcus J. Ranum) writes:
>>Gee... This sounds a lot like NeWS does'nt it? 
>	NeWS is a pretty cool idea, but I just can't appreciate adding
>PostScript to a network-based window system. Before everyone jumps on
>me, let me explain:
>	do an "lpq" on a machine with a few PostScript printers.
>	PostScript can produce spiffy images, for sure, but it's just
>too easy to produce 100K worth of glop to print a page. The idea of
>*THAT* as the imaging model behind my window systems makes me afraid,
>very afraid. *USUALLY* I realize that having PostScript in the window
===
 >system is a savings, but you have to make sure that your applications
 >are not stupid about doing the PostScript equivalent of bells and
 >whistles.
===
    This is kind of a weak argument isn't it? You can make the same
    assertion about any language. Frugality is a virtue I agree, but
    using PostScript as an imaging model does not instantly turn you
    into a glutton. It's really a pretty reasonable language as
    interpreters go.  I do agree with you though that there is some
    pretty lame postscript code which is output by some applications.