Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.rmit.EDU.AU!news.unimelb.EDU.AU!munnari.OZ.AU!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.artisoft.com!usenet
From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Historic Opportunity facing Free Unix (was Re: The Lai/Baker paper, benchmarks, and the world of free UNIX)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 17:25:17 -0700
Organization: Me
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <31758BED.56EB7755@lambert.org>
References: <4ki055$60l@Radon.Stanford.EDU> <yfgd959fo96.fsf@time.cdrom.com> <199604161719.SAA02142@kythera.demon.co.uk> <31740061.389946B0@lambert.org> <4l19gb$sn8@zeus.achilles.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hecate.artisoft.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (X11; I; Linux 1.1.76 i486)
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.development.system:21772 comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc:689 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:3322 comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:3159 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:17669 comp.os.linux.advocacy:46260
Paul JY Lahaie wrote:
] In article <31740061.389946B0@lambert.org>,
] Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> wrote:
]
] >I'v eoften thought that X should provide an object interface,
] >and that look-and-feel should be implemented in X server --
] >like the window manager should be.
]
] I hope that after you have such thoughts you wake up from that
] horrible nightmare :-) The X server should not enforce policy.
] It should do what it needs to do, which is windows, and nothing else.
]
] The entire flexibility of X is lost if you force a policy on
] the user.
You have missed the semantic distinction between "implemented in"
and "implemented by".
They are not the same thing.
Do you or do you not believe the user should be able to download
a window manager to run on the X terminal processor? Let it be
the usr's choice of window manager if you want. NCD and other
successful X terminal vendors believe this should be the case.
Maybe because they save a factor of 3 on wire traffic for each
X event by doing this?
Now consider wksh. Your argument is the quivalent of complaining
that no one will use wksh to implement user interfaces because
the wksh script language is incapable of making X calls directly:
it only makes them via proxy by calling wksh builtins.
Now consider if you could run all of your wksh programs with one
copy of wksh.
The difference between that and what I suggested was that what I
suggested involves 1/3 or less of the wire traffic.
It's the wksh itself that make the "look-n-feel policy decision",
not the script writer... is this a bad thing? No.
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.