Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!wuarchive!texbell!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.windows.news Subject: Re: Is SUN a "PURE PLAYER" in window systems - SunView or OpenWindows??? Keywords: X, NeWS, Toolkits Message-ID: <18YA-8xds13@ficc.uu.net> Date: 2 Jan 90 14:46:37 GMT References: <8912302010.AA11723@super.super.org> <20966@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 21 > I am afraid I disagree with the arguments expressed here. The problem > truely lies in toolkits and policy. In order for memory savings to > take place, programs *must agree* to use the same features. This is a political problem, primarily. You have to convince people that it's not a good idea to create new *types* of gadgets. However, there's no point in trying to make them all look alike. > Otherwise, > using the NeWS paradigm, each program will download its own features > into the server and you will have a gigantic server where little or > no sharing occurs. Perhaps. Does this happen in practice, though? I think we can all agree that it does happen in X. And X doesn't even have the option of sharing resources when they're desirable... sure, you can use shared libraries, but that doesn't help when you're dealing with multiple machines. This is a networked window system, after all. And X doesn't leave a channel for the user to install enhanced gadgets, except by at least relinking all their programs. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. . 'U` Also or . "It was just dumb luck that Unix managed to break through the Stupidity Barrier and become popular in spite of its inherent elegance." -- gavin@krypton.sgi.com