Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!gatech!fabscal!dtscp1!scott
From: scott@dtscp1.UUCP (Scott Barman)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: System V Release 4.0 Developer Conferences
Message-ID: <382@dtscp1.UUCP>
Date: 4 Oct 88 00:37:25 GMT
References: <167@hsi86.hsi.UUCP> <1988Sep22.173745.14647@utzoo.uucp> <8570@smoke.ARPA> <1988Sep26.213223.407@utzoo.uucp> <1988Sep29.173254.26081@utzoo.uucp>
Reply-To: scott@dtscp1.UUCP (Scott Barman)
Organization: Digital Transmission Systems, Atlanta
Lines: 22

In article <1988Sep29.173254.26081@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>ABI implies that a conforming machine must have kernel support for both 
>>NeWS *and* X.  This is ridiculous for people who plan to run neither.
>
>I'm told that there is no particular kernel support needed, but the
>relevant libraries must be present even if the machine runs no windowing
>at all.  The reason is to be sure that people on that machine can use
>windowing facilities on other machines, if present.

(Note: this is not directed at H. Spencer, just his informants)
Once again someone is going to tell us how to run/operate/manage/program a
system.  Just once I would like to see an option left as an option and not
have the damned thing shoved down our throats because someone who has the
need for it thinks we all do!  So what happens (as someone suggested) I
want to hang a few blits off this machine?

And the obvious (that comes with the obvious answer eluded to by Henry S.)
why should I support NeWS in any form if my application is, has been, and
will be X--by our choice?

-- 
scott barman		..!gatech!dtscp1!scott