Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!SUN.COM!dshr
From: dshr@SUN.COM (David Rosenthal)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: A Thought on X Terminals
Message-ID: <8902272209.AA07843@devnull.sun.com>
Date: 27 Feb 89 18:50:04 GMT
Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 37

You are missing two points:

-	All I am trying to do is to point that the claims

	X terminals are cheaper than workstations
	X terminals run the same applications as workstations

	need to be taken with a large pinch of salt.  I am not
	saying X terminals are a bad idea - in the right context
	they can be cost-effective - but that the right contexts
	to employ them in are somewhat restricted.

-	You have been taken in by the first of the claims.  You
	keep contrasting $2K terminals with $10K workstations,
	ignoring the cost of the resources needed to run the clients.
	Does Encore give its machines away free with a box of X
	terminals?

I have been saying the same thing for a long time.  It is our
responsibility to address the problems caused by the possibility of
running out of memory.  To stick our heads in the sand,  cross our
fingers,  and hope that no-one ever actually runs out of memory in
a situation where it actually matters reminds me strongly of the
pre-worm situation on the Internet - everyone knew that worms were
possible but people just hoped they wouldn't actually happen because
solving the problem was hard and the Internet was so useful.

When someone is killed because a critical X client crashes with an
Alloc error,  it won't do us a lot of good to say "yes,  we knew about
this,  but we couldn't be bothered to deal with the problem" like we
had to for the worm.  The fact that the problem is hard isn't an excuse
for not trying to solve it.

And don't say "everyone knows that you shouldn't build critical things
in X".  I've already heard about air traffic control work in X.

	David.