Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!amdcad!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!allosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu!bob
From: bob@allosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: dozing vendor
Message-ID: <23563@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Date: 5 Oct 88 16:07:08 GMT
References: <22992@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> <8810040110.AA04391@denali.GWD.TEK.COM>
Sender: news@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept of Computer & Information Science
Lines: 26

It has been suggested that I share the name of that dozing vendor in
this forum.  That seems inadvisable and perhaps rude, at least until
I've exhausted all possible avenues in private discussion with the
company itself.  I think I appreciate the quality-control issues that
may be at stake in the company's development cycle, but I still
maintain that if they are shipping software that runs on a freely-
available though commercially unsupported server platform now (X10.4)
then they should not have any qualms about doing the same with X11.

In article <8810040110.AA04391@denali.GWD.TEK.COM> paulsh@denali.gwd.tek.COM (Paul Shearer) writes:
>Use the x10tox11 converter and you won't have to wait for his port.
>You can run X10 clients on your X11 server.

x10tox11, while a nifty idea, is simple-minded with the protocol and
slow.  That slowness, combined with the already sludgy performance of
X11R2 on a Sun-3/50 (though it's much better with gcc and the Purdue
mods), would make the software very unpopular.  But perhaps it's a
way, at least, to get on down the road.  I'll suggest that the more
adventurous users give it a try.

Another problem is that this particular X10 client causes x10tox11 to
die with a segmentation fault when it exits.  It's ugly, but it seems
that the work gets done before then.
-=-
Zippy sez,								--Bob
Didn't I buy a 1951 Packard from you last March in Cairo?