Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!rpi!uupsi!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals
Subject: Re: X11 bashing
Message-ID: <1EZA5J4@xds13.ferranti.com>
Date: 25 Apr 91 14:33:43 GMT
References: <16818@chaph.usc.edu> <558@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> <1991Apr25.022055.27604@neon.Stanford.EDU>
Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Lines: 18

In article <1991Apr25.022055.27604@neon.Stanford.EDU> sidana@neon.Stanford.EDU (Ashmeet S Sidana) writes:
> But herein lies the problem. X was NOT designed to provide a
> user-interface.  One of the goals of the original design WAS
> separation of policy and mechanism. So saying "X did it wrong" is
> incorrect. What they set out to do they achieved.

That's right. The spec was right for a research system. It was, however,
quite wrong for a commercial system. The problem isn't X, it's all the
lazy manufacturers (and customers) who are using X outside its design
goals.

I don't care about the politics. I just want something that works without
multiple megabytes of duplicated effort. Commercial X is like multiuser
DOS: a horrible waste of resources. A good commercial windowing system
should be able to run in a $500 box: server, apps, the whole thing.
-- 
Peter da Silva.  `-_-'  peter@ferranti.com
+1 713 274 5180.  'U`  "Have you hugged your wolf today?"