Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!sgi!shinobu!odin!sgihub!zola!westworld.esd.sgi.com!erik From: erik@westworld.esd.sgi.com (Erik Fortune) Newsgroups: comp.windows.news Subject: Re: NeWS "open" / "standard"? Message-ID: <1991Jun24.214836.27386@zola.esd.sgi.com> Date: 24 Jun 91 21:48:36 GMT References: <1991Jun21.165649@aquarius.sfu.ca> Sender: news@zola.esd.sgi.com (Net News) Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc. Lines: 136 >1) The PostScript model is far "better" than X. For example, if I > want my X application to display grey scale on a monochrome > display I have to encode all the dither maps and then manage > all the stipple switching myself. In PostScript I just set the > grey level and draw. Better for some things, worse for others. Rasterops and colormaps are real useful things for a lot of applictions. Postscript imaging and X imaging are different. Each has its uses. >2) Unlike an X window server, a PostScript window server is > dynamically extensible. I can taylor the look and feel where > it's most important, on screen rather than across the network. > Unlike Display PostScript, NeWS does primary event handling in > the server. This can dramatically reduce the number of events > that have to be transfered across the networks. In general, > modern computer netorks work best with large quantities of data > (tranmitted less frequently) rather than zillions of tiny event > packets. Straw man (IMO). This argument ignores the added complexity of doing the event handling in the server (in terms of server size and performance) and the hassle of debugging a program that is split across multiple machines and languages. There are tradeoffs either way -- doing everything in the server not such a clear win. I still remember the arguments from (some) NeWS folks in the early days of X that it was absolutely impossible to get good interactive performance for things like rubber-banding and outline dragging without handling events in the server. On more than one occasion we'd go and demostrate perfectly acceptable tracking to these people only to hear them make the same claim in a different forum a week later. >And over dial-up slip connections, X is barely usable > whereas NeWS applications can perform remarkably well. No argument here. If your bandwidth is low you need to do more work in the server. >3) The architecure of X is very primative from a systems aspect. > It's crazy the amount of low level issues you have to worry > about writing X applications (like if you don't handle your > events fast enough you make the server very upset). I've never run into this problem. Are your clients runnning on a particularly slow host? Xlib is low level -- it's supposed to be. Try one of the many toolkits available for X (InterViews, Andrew, etc). >4) The NeWS OOPS extenstions to PostScript offer a lot of potential. > I really wish Adobe ahd consider such extensions in Display > PostScript. OOPS also greatly simplifies PostScript programming. I'll steal a line from your posting: "If PostScript is so great, why is there now an OOPS extension." PostScript is a great page description language. As a general purpose programming language, I'll pass. >5) If I were paying people to write code I would rather they not > have to learn an manage too many differnt graphics systems. With > X you have to learn X for screen work and somthing else (probably > PostScript) for printer work. Using PostScript on screen and on > printer reduces the load on the programmers. Postscript is great for some things (generally for things that overlap with printers). For those things, you have Display Postscript. I wouldn't want to write a flight simulator in postscript, though. >If X is so great, why is there now a Display Postscript extension? >Unfortunately there isn't a NeWS extension to X. Because PostScript is good for some things, while X rendering is good for others. I'm not sure what a NeWS extension to X would be. >- No company will ever admit they didn't want Sun to add another > de facto industry standard to their resume (an so endorsed an > inferior technology like X). Everyone knows companies don't really > do things like that. More likely, DEC and IBM invested a lot > in Project Athena, so they (and others) simply marketed X more > agressively than Sun (who had less invested in NeWS). This conspiracy theory nonsense has been around for a long, long time and it's pure garbage. I worked for IBM (doing X -- in fact, I was the only person writing servers at IBM for a number of months) at the time and IBM was dragged kicking and screaming into X. X was written and promoted by engineers in universities and at a number of companies. X gained support because it had a relatively large user community, was demonstrably portable, and was adequate for most of the applications people wanted to write. Also, people were getting tired of having 20 different ways to do graphics and wanted to settle on something (anything!) that was good enough to get the job done. X was a known quantity and was good enough. The amusing and annoying thing about this consipiracy crap is that it always seemed to me (back then) that NeWS was an attempt to derail X because Sun couldn't stand having a widespread standard they hadn't originated. It seemed to me that Sun was petulant about the existence of something they didn't control. At the time it seemed (to me) like we had engineers from a surprisingly broad collection of companies and universities cooperating to produce a window system and then you had Sun off on the sidelines jumping up and down and screaming. I've since gotten to know some of the people involved (from Sun) better, and tempered my opinions somewhat. Get a few things straight, though. X was *NOT* a reaction to NeWS. Project Athena was *NOT* commisioned to create X. IBM in particular did *NOT* even like X a whole lot. >- NeWS was never as accessible as X (and still isn't). First you > had to pay for it, which meant securing funding, typing purchase > requisitions, waiting and waiting for the courier... X was > easily available via ftp. Bingo. NeWS was never open or available. >- Sun must have done something to alienate Adobe, why else would > Adobe work so closely with NeXT to develop Display Postscript. Maybe, maybe not. Someone from Adobe should comment. The comments I heard from (friends at) Adobe was that they consider PostScript to be a page description language (i.e. fairly special puprpose) and that NeWS added a lot of warts to it to try to make it a general purpose programming language. For what it's worth, I heard some grumbles about some of the additions NeXT made to postscript as well. I have no idea what Adobe's official position (if it even has one). >While NeWS is probably the "best" windowing system today, Sun's >poor handling of the early marking and vendor/customer relations >has much to do with the success of X. I (and many people) disagree with the statement that NeWS is the "best" windowing system today. >If Sun are still serious about NeWS (it still isn't clear that >they are), they should do a better job of marketing it, and an >even better job of playing nicely with other vendors in order >to promote greater industry support for NeWS. They might start >by making peace with Adobe (and apologising to SGI). Uh. Best of Luck. -- Erik