Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unmvax!ncar!ames!amdcad!sun!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!steinmetz!kbsvax!rls From: rls@onondaga.steinmetz.ge.com (Roderick Sprattling) Newsgroups: comp.windows.x Subject: A Thought on X Terminals Message-ID: Date: 30 Jan 89 16:48:45 GMT References: <19613@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> Sender: news@steinmetz.ge.com Distribution: comp Organization: General Electric CRD, Schenectady, NY Lines: 31 In-reply-to: vojta@maypo.berkeley.edu's message of 28 Jan 89 03:25:08 GMT In the second article referenced above, Paul Vojta writes: >As long as we are on the subject of wish lists for additions to the server, >why not allow the client to send a font to the server 'on the fly'? This >would at least help in the writing of dvi previewers. And this reflects my chief beef with the idea of X terminals. Because a terminal-based X server has no secondary storage, the manufacturer must place resource data in static memory. This ensures two things: 1. The limited memory in a terminal cannot contain all resource data. Some get EEPROM'd, some don't; 2. The terminal-based server has no provisions for incorporating new or revised resource data, save chip swaps. A useful X server should satisfy all reasonable resource requests of a client. Unless it's configured with disks (a high-density floppy and 20-meg drive should be plenty) and provides plenty of storage (disk or memory) for client data caching, then a terminal is not, in my mind, an approprite platform for X. Comments and rebuttals welcome. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Rod Sprattling rls@onondaga.steinmetz.ge.com uunet!steinmetz!onondaga!rls rls%onondaga.tcpip@ge-crd.arpa rls%onondaga@steinmetz.UUCP ---------------------------------------------------------------------