Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!barmar
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Subject: Re: X11 bashing
Message-ID: <1991Apr24.223910.1517@Think.COM>
Sender: news@Think.COM
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
References: <1991Apr17.040918.12203@Think.COM> <.VXAREE@xds13.ferranti.com> <16818@chaph.usc.edu>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 91 22:39:10 GMT

In article <16818@chaph.usc.edu> jeenglis@alcor.usc.edu (Joe English) writes:
>>[Barry Margolin wrote:]
>>> I don't think our image processing and animation people...
>>
>>Animation? Under X? The good animation stuff I've seen has an X-window
>>acting as a mask in front of proprietary high-speed graphics stuff.
>
>If I remember right, the "..." in the >>ed line
>originally read something like "would consider X to be a
>usable environment for their needs."  Why did you ellipsis
>the quote?  It makes it look like you're disagreeing with
>Barry.

No, he got it right.  I believe the "..." was something like, "would
consider a bunch of xterm windows to be usable".

Most of our real-time animation work is generally done on frame buffers
directly connected to the Connection Machine system.  However, the CM
graphics library is generic -- it can display on a directly-connected frame
buffer or a networked X display.  Since CM frame buffers are not as common
as X displays, the developers generally use X output during development,
and use the CM display for final, realtime runs.

The general point I was making is that many people who use X *need*
multiwindowed graphics, so a protocol that only provides a bunch of text
windows is nearly worthless to them.

--
Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com
{uunet,harvard}!think!barmar