Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!rutgers!umn-d-ub!rhealey
From: rhealey@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU (Rob Healey)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.att
Subject: More X foolishness
Message-ID: <3220@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU>
Date: 15 Feb 90 21:32:21 GMT
References: <1089@icus.islp.ny.us> <15523@cs.yale.edu> <15830@cs.yale.edu>
Reply-To: rhealey@ub.d.umn.edu.UUCP (Rob Healey)
Organization: University of Minnesota, Duluth
Lines: 23

In article <15830@cs.yale.edu> yarvin-norman@CS.YALE.EDU (Norman Yarvin) writes:
>Lenny Tropiano writes:
>> I probably not the correct person to comment on this, but doesn't X11 have
>> quite a bit of networking code in it to handle X windows over a network
>> medium.  Since the UNIX pc doesn't have any "great" network, other than
>> STARLAN, wouldn't it be wise to remove this from the X server?  Could this
>> be done to keep the X applications and server down in size?  I still don't
>> know if this will make it feasible for the UNIX pc.  
>
>I don't know.  But if anybody gets the total size of X (server + xterms)
>below 1 MB, I will be very surprised.  Many people out there only have 1
>MB, and few have more than 2.

	The BIG problem is the UNIX PC's virtual address space, not the
	amount of physical memory. Why try to make the UNIX PC run both
	clients and server? Start out small and have it run a special
	server. Work out the applications later...

	See other posting for more foolish ideas.

		Just me raising rabble again,

			-Rob