Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!mailrus!uflorida!gatech!kong!emory!stiatl!meo
From: meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: A Thought on X Terminals
Message-ID: <3449@stiatl.UUCP>
Date: 28 Feb 89 18:39:40 GMT
Organization: Sales Technologies Inc., Atlanta, GA
Lines: 30

In article <8902272209.AA07843@devnull.sun.com> dshr@SUN.COM (David Rosenthal) writes:
>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.

While the above, quoted statement is true, it is beside the point. We have
to decide, "Is this just another neat toy I can play with while attempting
to justify my salary to my employer, or is this a REAL PRODUCT?"

If the former, that's fine, but make sure the toys stay in the toybox.
Sort of like the movie, "Gremlins". That cute, fuzzy creature, when
not properly hamdled and constrained, caused lots of damage. Who do you
blame? The kid? His dad? The Chinese kid? The Chinese old man? The cops?
IT IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT TO THOSE WHO ARE DEAD!

On the other hand, if it's real (which a lot of people have been saying
it is), if it's available (oboy is it available), and we are selling
products based on it, then both the platform and our products had better
be prepared to perform in the real world. X is sort of the anti-Ada, in
some respects. In some ways, I like that. In some ways, it scares me a lot
more than the thought of Ada-powered missle computers.

-Miles
gatech!stiatl!meo
meo@stiatl.gatech.edu