X11 Support in Rhapsody
Eric A. Dubiel
Kinda reminds me of Apple/NeXT reinventing the wheel again. NIHS, Not
Invented Here Syndrome.
The UNIX diehards will complain that Rhapsody SUCKS because of lack of
X11 support. Plus, NO UNIX comes STANDARD WITH SOFTWARE THAT DISPLAYS
NeXT's OPENSTEP DPS...
It just doesn't make sense to me to NOT include it.
I've already heard the arguments here at my campus from other UNIX users
(who LOVE AfterStep, but love X11 for its configurability, something
NEXTSTEP seems to lack...).
OPENSTEP isn't all that portable yet, and X11 is. Maybe I'm playing
devil's advocate here a little...
--
Eric A. Dubiel; http://www.ilstu.edu/~eadubie
mailto:ead...@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu
ytalk ead...@138.87.201.11 MIME, SUN, NeXT, PGP Mail ok
R&D---Instructional Technology Services---Illinois State University
"I first saw NeXTSTEP in 1990 and I was blown away."
- Eric Schmidt, Novell Inc. CEO
ALL VIEWS EXPRESSED REPRESENT MYSELF ONLY
George Graves
Eric A. Dubiel wrote:
>
> Some people may be sorry to even hear me say it, but I think X11 Support
> should be in Rhapsody for added compatibility, and to fit in with most
> major UNIX installations.
>
> Comments?!
> ---
> Eric A. Dubiel; http://www.ilstu.edu/~eadubie
> mailto:ead...@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu
> ytalk ead...@138.87.201.11 MIME, SUN, NeXT, PGP Mail ok
> R&D---Instructional Technology Services---Illinois State University
> Please, you have to trust me." -Microglobe
> ALL VIEWS EXPRESSED REPRESENT MYSELF ONLY
It will be, eventually. Have patience.
George Graves
Eric A. Dubiel
planetary
In comp.sys.next.advocacy Eric A. Dubiel <ead...@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu> wrote:
: Some people may be sorry to even hear me say it, but I think X11 Support
: should be in Rhapsody for added compatibility, and to fit in with most
: major UNIX installations.
I'm not sorry you said it. I think this was the single biggest obstacle to
the adoption of NeXT by the workstation community. I hope sincerely that
they build a super fast X11 implementation into the core OS. XFree86 would
be fine.
If Novell can put X11 and the AWT on IntranetWare I, Apple can integrate
X11 decently into Rhapsody.
.............kris
--
Kristopher Magnusson kr...@xmission.com (no NeXTmail, please)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contains freshness saver packet. DO NOT EAT.
andrew_a...@omnigroup.com
pla...@xmission.xmission.com (planetary) wrote:
> In comp.sys.next.advocacy Eric A. Dubiel <ead...@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu>
wrote:
> : Some people may be sorry to even hear me say it, but I think X11 Support
> : should be in Rhapsody for added compatibility, and to fit in with most
> : major UNIX installations.
>
> I'm not sorry you said it. I think this was the single biggest obstacle to
> the adoption of NeXT by the workstation community. I hope sincerely that
> they build a super fast X11 implementation into the core OS. XFree86 would
> be fine.
>
> If Novell can put X11 and the AWT on IntranetWare I, Apple can integrate
> X11 decently into Rhapsody.
I'll register on this one. X11 should not be in Rhapsody, and I cannot
imagine that it will be. It is, however, appropriate (and desireable)
as an affordable third-party add-on.
And the AWT must die.
(Both in my opinion, of course.)
--
andrew_a...@omnigroup.com - NeXTmail & MIME ok
Shimpei Yamashita
Eric A. Dubiel <ead...@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu> writes:
>
>Kinda reminds me of Apple/NeXT reinventing the wheel again. NIHS, Not
>Invented Here Syndrome.
>
>The UNIX diehards will complain that Rhapsody SUCKS because of lack of
>X11 support. Plus, NO UNIX comes STANDARD WITH SOFTWARE THAT DISPLAYS
>NeXT's OPENSTEP DPS...
>
>It just doesn't make sense to me to NOT include it.
>
>I've already heard the arguments here at my campus from other UNIX users
>(who LOVE AfterStep, but love X11 for its configurability, something
>NEXTSTEP seems to lack...).
>
>OPENSTEP isn't all that portable yet, and X11 is. Maybe I'm playing
>devil's advocate here a little...
The problem with your argument here is that X11 and OpenStep are not
comparable technologies. OpenStep is more like X11+Motif+mwm, plus more.
Considering that people who *need* X11 (as opposed to people who equate
configurability with 2000-line .fvwmrc files that they tweak every day for
fun) are a small fraction of the MacOS audience, and those people
typically care less about the window manager--they only care about what's
*in* the windows, which is a good strategy given how awful some X window
managers are--I think it will be sufficienty for Apple to offer X as an
add-on, like they do now with MacX.
Shimpei.
PS FYI, I'd personally love to see X in Rhapsody--I'll probably end up
buying an X server myself. I just don't think it has such a wide market appeal.
--
Shimpei Yamashita <http://socrates.caltech.edu/%7Eshimpei/>
Gregory Loren Hansen
In article <5hgddb$r...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
Shimpei Yamashita <shi...@socrates.caltech.edu> wrote:
>Considering that people who *need* X11 (as opposed to people who equate
>configurability with 2000-line .fvwmrc files that they tweak every day for
>fun) are a small fraction of the MacOS audience, and those people
>typically care less about the window manager--they only care about what's
>*in* the windows, which is a good strategy given how awful some X window
>managers are--I think it will be sufficienty for Apple to offer X as an
>add-on, like they do now with MacX.
Sure, and I would have bought MacX a long time ago. It's not something
you can just pick up in a typical software store, but I could have ordered
it from the company. Except it costs more than the friggin' OS does!
With Rhapsody, I sure hope Apple isn't limiting its market to current Mac
users. Since it will have a very nice Unix, I would hope Apple would also
target the Unix crowd. And you just can't do that without X11. I don't
see any reason they should make compatibility with *the* major networked
graphics standard any more expensive or difficult than it has to be.
There's just no reason to not include X11.
--
"Whoever got anywhere by being normal?" -- Charles the Brain Child
Gary W. Longsine
In <333B1C...@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu> it appeared that "Eric A. Dubiel"
> Some people may be sorry to even hear me say it, but I think X11 Support
> should be in Rhapsody for added compatibility, and to fit in with most
> major UNIX installations.
X-11 support is *not* built into Windows or Windows NT. In those markets,
X-11 support is provided by a 3rd party vendor. However, I think Apple could
provide a much nicer X-11 support for Rhapsody than 3rd party vendors did for
NeXTSTEP. (After all, Apple can modify the OS to provide better support if
needed -- and i think it is.)
built-in would be nice, like Java will be built-in. It would be acceptable
as an optional shrinkwrap package that could be sold to those who need it,
though.
/gary
--
Gary W. Longsine, Systems Engineer | ____/| OpenStep, MachOS,
PLATINUM Technologies, Inc. | \ o.O| Objective-C:
l_o_n...@platinum.com (NeXTmail | =(_)=
(Can i have his spam?) & MIME) |. U Elegance is Relevant.
Peter A. Koren
In article <333B1C...@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu>, ead...@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu
says...
>
>Some people may be sorry to even hear me say it, but I think X11 Support
>should be in Rhapsody for added compatibility, and to fit in with most
>major UNIX installations.
>
For me X11 is critical, just because of the legacy code. For in house
programming and enterprise computing productive shops and programmers are not
going to give up their critical applications just to move to a better (vastly
better IMHO) OpenStep environment. Apple needs to do one of two things:
1 Include X support without crapping up Rhapsody.
2 Work with third parties to produce a reasonably low
cost X add on.
This would give Apple a compelling case to capture the Unix crowd. "Sure, keep
using your X apps, AND get on a superior high programming productivity
platform which is priced at the PC level, not the Unix workstation level."
If they do it, Im captured 8^).
Pete
John C. Randolph
"Eric A. Dubiel" <ead...@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu> writes:
>Some people may be sorry to even hear me say it, but I think X11 Support
>should be in Rhapsody for added compatibility, and to fit in with most
>major UNIX installations.
>Comments?!
Including X in the default installation will encourage people to use X.
This is a crime against humanity. X is one of the *Worst* things that ever
happened to UNIX.
Apple's purchase of NeXT is an enormous opportunity to remedy some of the
horrible warts common in the UNIX world. Since Apple will be the largest
UNIX vendor by volume, a couple of benefits ensue:
1) BSD outnumbers SysV.
2) DPS outnumbers X
3) NetInfo outnumbers NIS and NIS+.
4) The poor, benighted C++ developers at least get Objective-C to use.
5) UNIX finally gets a widely-deployed, tolerable UI.
I'm all for having an X server available, for those occasions where
it's needed to overcome an luser's "it's not compatible with the
Crap I'm using now" objections, but it should stay in the same
category as SoftPC: an add-on, that lets you deal with the legacy
crap.
-jcr
Lee Altenberg
In <333B1C...@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu> "Eric A. Dubiel" wrote:
> Some people may be sorry to even hear me say it, but I think X11 Support
> should be in Rhapsody for added compatibility, and to fit in with most
> major UNIX installations.
>
> Comments?!
>
In order to penetrate the academic research world, I'd say this is a necessity
(support of legacy profs). But with X11 support, as long as the rest of the
platform is solid, there will then be no excuse for academics to rule out
Rhapsody out of hand. Then it becomes "more" not "other". I think it would be
a good idea for more than just whatever $ exist in that market. It adds to the
sense that Rhapsody is a "serious" operating system for serious people (pure
perception IMHO). And that is good for mindshare everywhere.
--
=======================================================================
Lee Altenberg, Ph.D.
Research Affiliate, University of Hawai`i at Manoa
Office: Maui High Performance Computing Center
550 Lipoa Parkway, Suite 100
Kihei, Maui HI 96753
Phone: (808) 879-5077 x 296 (work), (808) 879-5018 (fax)
E-mail: altenberATmhpcc.edu <change the AT to @---an anti junk mail ploy>
Web: http://pueo.mhpcc.edu/~altenber/
=======================================================================
Arun Gupta
Gregory Loren Hansen <glha...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>
>With Rhapsody, I sure hope Apple isn't limiting its market to current Mac
>users. Since it will have a very nice Unix, I would hope Apple would also
>target the Unix crowd. And you just can't do that without X11. I don't
>see any reason they should make compatibility with *the* major networked
>graphics standard any more expensive or difficult than it has to be.
>There's just no reason to not include X11.
Since Rhapsody probably won't have clustering or fault-tolerance for
a while, I can imagine it being used in an environment where it is the
client with UNIX servers behind. In this situation, X11 might be a
good thing to have.
-arun gupta
Gary W. Longsine
In <jcr.85...@idiom.com> it appeared that John C. Randolph wrote:
> "Eric A. Dubiel" <ead...@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu> writes:
>
> >should be in Rhapsody for added compatibility, and to fit in with most
> >major UNIX installations.
>
> >Comments?!
>
> This is a crime against humanity. X is one of the *Worst* things that ever
> happened to UNIX.
Despite my earlier comments, I must say that I agree with John on this.
Maybe it should be an optional shrinkwrap party, or be left up to 3rd party
vendors.
Gary W. Longsine
In <5hhcml$890$1...@xmission.xmission.com> it appeared that planetary wrote:
> Yes, X is an abomination.
>
> But missing X11 support was NEXTSTEP's single biggest sales obstacle in
> the workstation marketplace. X11 needs to ship with Rhapsody at no extra
> cost.
>
> If there's any company who can do X the right way, it's NeXT. There's no
> technical reason why X11 can't be supported elegantly and natively in
> Rhapsody.
>
> * Rhapsody window manager (rwm) with the advanced Mac look and feel
> * preconfigured .rwmrc files
> * backward compatibility with mwm, twm, etc.
Hmmm... Yes, it could work. But it will take tools... and time...
How long is this stuff supposed to last, anyway?
;)
planetary
In comp.sys.next.advocacy Gary W. Longsine <gary-n...@screaming.org> wrote:
: In <jcr.85...@idiom.com> it appeared that John C. Randolph wrote:
: > Including X in the default installation will encourage people to use X.
: > This is a crime against humanity. X is one of the *Worst* things that ever
: > happened to UNIX.
: Despite my earlier comments, I must say that I agree with John on this.
: Maybe it should be an optional shrinkwrap party, or be left up to 3rd party
: vendors.
Yes, X is an abomination.
But missing X11 support was NEXTSTEP's single biggest sales obstacle in
the workstation marketplace. X11 needs to ship with Rhapsody at no extra
cost.
If there's any company who can do X the right way, it's NeXT. There's no
technical reason why X11 can't be supported elegantly and natively in
Rhapsody.
* Rhapsody window manager (rwm) with the advanced Mac look and feel
* preconfigured .rwmrc files
* backward compatibility with mwm, twm, etc.
..............kris
Stephen Peters
"Eric A. Dubiel" <ead...@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu> writes:
> Kinda reminds me of Apple/NeXT reinventing the wheel again. NIHS, Not
> Invented Here Syndrome.
>
> The UNIX diehards will complain that Rhapsody SUCKS because of lack of
> X11 support.
I *am* a UNIX diehard. And I still believe that X just is not
necessary to include in the base system. I agree that it needs to be
available in some form, preferably from 3rd parties, but it's just not
a great technology that needs to be included.
The reason I don't use Mac or Windows is not due to a lack of X. The
reason I'm currently typing on a Sun is not because it has X.
To be honest, a higher priority for me would be to port over some of
the more cross-platform technologies so that they run native on
NeXTSTEP/OpenStep. Java, Tcl/Tk, ...
> Plus, NO UNIX comes STANDARD WITH SOFTWARE THAT DISPLAYS NeXT's
> OPENSTEP DPS...
Heck, give Linux time. The way that platform moves, I won't be too
surprised if it shows up... :-)
--
Stephen L. Peters spe...@cygnus.com
PGP fingerprint: BFA4 D0CF 8925 08AE 0CA5 CCDD 343D 6AC6
"What, do you think soup is a biped?" -- Crow, MST3K
Eric A. Dubiel
andrew_a...@omnigroup.com wrote:
> I'll register on this one. X11 should not be in Rhapsody, and I cannot
> imagine that it will be. It is, however, appropriate (and desireable)
> as an affordable third-party add-on.
>
> And the AWT must die.
>
> (Both in my opinion, of course.)
*In my experience*, trying to convince current Linux/X11 users, and
Solaris users to use DPS and OPENSTEP is like getting teeth pulled...
I think NeXT's got to submit OPENSTEP to a standards body, like SUN is
doing with JAVA, before we can say "Screw X11"...
OPENSTEP is missing on quite a few platforms still, like HP-UX,
IRIX...it just seems that Rhapsody would appeal to a broader audience if
they include X11.
Hell, it's FREE!!!
After all that's what most everyone's familiar with. Look at Microsoft,
they kept the DOS compatibility in place and they've KEPT users! I
think NeXT-Apple will repel some potential users if they don't include
it.
But like I said, if OPENSTEP goes to a standards body or GNU or
something, then I think things will be alright. NeXT-Apple's taking the
same attitude Microsoft is, it seems with their AFC for Java.
Humor zone:
^^^^^^^^^^
Hey Beavis, just how "OPEN" is "OPENSTEP"?
Uh huh huh, shut-up Butthead, OPENSTEP was cool, until you let the cat
out of the bag. Uh huh huh...got some Java dude?
-Eric
--
Eric A. Dubiel; http://www.ilstu.edu/~eadubie
mailto:ead...@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu
ytalk ead...@138.87.201.11 MIME, SUN, NeXT, PGP Mail ok
R&D---Instructional Technology Services---Illinois State University
"I first saw NeXTSTEP in 1990 and I was blown away."
- Eric Schmidt, Novell Inc. CEO
Stephen Peters
So's the Michelangelo virus. That doesn't necessarily mean Apple
should ship it. :-)
And, to my way of thinking, X11 is not free. It comes with a lot of
baggage that you don't think about, like its inevitable ties to ugly
window managers, incredibly kludgy inter-client communications, and
Motif.
I still think it's vastly more important to get the applications
working as well on NeXT as they do on X11, if not better (and that
reminds me; I've got to publish my NeXTSTEP povray3 modifications
sometime...)
> After all that's what most everyone's familiar with. Look at
> Microsoft, they kept the DOS compatibility in place and they've KEPT
> users! I think NeXT-Apple will repel some potential users if they
> don't include it.
Eric, there aren't that many people using straight DOS commands on
Windows 95. They've kept DOS in place to satisfy outdated
applications that people are used to running on their old hardware
after they upgraded their system.
That's not the same problem as OPENSTEP and Rhapsody. Neither of the
existing user segments is used to running X11 on their box; they just
want to run the NeXT or Mac apps that they had.
Now, if we're talking about pulling in new user segments, wouldn't it
make more sense to work on including a good Windows emulator?
> But like I said, if OPENSTEP goes to a standards body or GNU or
> something, then I think things will be alright.
So, if GNUStep appears, the X11 issue is moot? At the risk of
bolstering your argument, I point out that GNUStep will most likely be
designed to run on X servers with DPS extensions, so I doubt it will
make the X issue go away for many people.
> Hey Beavis, just how "OPEN" is "OPENSTEP"?
> Uh huh huh, shut-up Butthead, OPENSTEP was cool, until you let the cat
> out of the bag. Uh huh huh...got some Java dude?
Um, Eric? Are you feeling OK?
planetary
In comp.sys.next.advocacy Stephen Peters <spe...@cygnus.com> wrote:
: Eric, there aren't that many people using straight DOS commands on
: Windows 95. They've kept DOS in place to satisfy outdated
: applications that people are used to running on their old hardware
: after they upgraded their system.
: That's not the same problem as OPENSTEP and Rhapsody. Neither of the
: existing user segments is used to running X11 on their box; they just
: want to run the NeXT or Mac apps that they had.
Correct--it's not the same problem. It's a different problem, and one just
as valid.
Yes, most existing NEXTSTEP and Mac users just want to run Mac apps. These
users are the ones that Apple/NeXT can count on to adopt Rhapsody.
However, Apple/NeXT wants to expand its user base, not just maintain the
status quo.
Many scientific, engineering, and financial users don't want to run
Mac apps, and indeed don't currently. These are potentially new
Apple/NeXT customers. Since the scientific market segment is sufficiently
large, Apple/NeXT should try to win more sales in it.
Many of these users run applications with interfaces written for X, and
with core logic written in C that relies on POSIX, BSD, or SysV libs that
may or may not be present in Rhapsody. Since X interfaces are remotable,
these users can run their applications on a server somewhere, and display
the interfaces on a workstation running Rhapsody. However, anyone who has
used an implementation of X that is not native to the OS (or even an
X terminal on a crowded day in the CS lab) knows that running the
interface remotely is a less than optimal solution.
What Apple/NeXT could do to attract these users is to maintain Unix
compatibility (already done) and to include a native Rhapsody X
implementation.
By including an implementation of X native to Rhapsody, this potential
sales obstacle is greatly mitigated.
: Now, if we're talking about pulling in new user segments, wouldn't it
: make more sense to work on including a good Windows emulator?
Yes, if all things were equal. But since X is open and you can just
download source code for it from MIT and port it without fear that MIT
will change the specification on you just as you finish your
implementation, X users are more cost effective to win over.
Gregory Loren Hansen
In article <5hgos2$8...@sf18.dseg.ti.com>, Peter A. Koren <pko...@ti.com> wrote:
>In article <333B1C...@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu>, ead...@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu
>says...
>>
>>should be in Rhapsody for added compatibility, and to fit in with most
>>major UNIX installations.
>>
>
>programming and enterprise computing productive shops and programmers are not
>going to give up their critical applications just to move to a better (vastly
>better IMHO) OpenStep environment. Apple needs to do one of two things:
>
> 1 Include X support without crapping up Rhapsody.
>
> 2 Work with third parties to produce a reasonably low
> cost X add on.
>
>This would give Apple a compelling case to capture the Unix crowd. "Sure, keep
>using your X apps, AND get on a superior high programming productivity
>platform which is priced at the PC level, not the Unix workstation level."
And I suppose this would have to include not only an X server like MacX,
but X libraries so source code can be compiled and pretty pictures appear
on your computer.
Do 3rd-party solutions exist for compiling X-code on NeXT?
Gregory Loren Hansen
In article <5hhcml$890$1...@xmission.xmission.com>,
planetary <pla...@xmission.xmission.com> wrote:
>Yes, X is an abomination.
>
>But missing X11 support was NEXTSTEP's single biggest sales obstacle in
>the workstation marketplace. X11 needs to ship with Rhapsody at no extra
>cost.
>
>If there's any company who can do X the right way, it's NeXT. There's no
>technical reason why X11 can't be supported elegantly and natively in
>Rhapsody.
Is there anything that would make it difficult to have an X-DPS/DPS-X
interface? So you can write software with DPS, but translate it to X as
needed?
Rick Sanford
In <333B44...@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu> "Eric A. Dubiel" wrote:
> Kinda reminds me of Apple/NeXT reinventing the wheel again. NIHS, Not
> Invented Here Syndrome.
and i thought that meant NeXT, Intel, HP & Sparc...
silly me.
-rick
Don Yacktman
glha...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory Loren Hansen) wrote:
> Do 3rd-party solutions exist for compiling X-code on NeXT?
Yes.
MouseX -- Free/shareware
coeXist -- commercial
Cub'X -- commercial
I believe both commercial ones are integrated such that a window created by
an X application appears as a NeXT window and are "rootless". It used to be
that you'd create a window to be your "root" window and X would run within
that, like SoftPC, or else X would take over the whole screen, reducing
interoperability between X and NEXTSTEP. (MouseX does that.)
At any rate, yes, they exist. But they exist for NEXTSTEP, not for OPENSTEP,
and they don't run on Rhapsody, obviously. It would be nice if, say, the
server to do rootless windows were built into the OS (and have it use
Interceptor) but the libraries were a third party add-on you could buy if you
want them. Sort of a "compatibility" solution for legacy customers that
doesn't encourage people to try and use X (barf).
--
Later,
-Don Yacktman
d...@misckit.com
<a href="http://www.misckit.com/don.html">My home page</a>
Eric A. Dubiel
planetary wrote:
> But missing X11 support was NEXTSTEP's single biggest sales obstacle in
> the workstation marketplace. X11 needs to ship with Rhapsody at no extra
> cost.
What about INCLUDING IT, BUT BY DEFAULT IT'S *NOT* INSTALLED?! Sounds
good to me...
> If there's any company who can do X the right way, it's NeXT. There's no
> technical reason why X11 can't be supported elegantly and natively in
> Rhapsody.
>
> * Rhapsody window manager (rwm) with the advanced Mac look and feel
> * preconfigured .rwmrc files
> * backward compatibility with mwm, twm, etc.
Ick! But ok, if we go with my first idea above.
Eric A. Dubiel
:)
Funny, isn't it?!!
Eric A. Dubiel
Don Yacktman wrote:
>
> glha...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory Loren Hansen) wrote:
> > Do 3rd-party solutions exist for compiling X-code on NeXT?
>
> Yes.
>
> MouseX -- Free/shareware
> coeXist -- commercial
> Cub'X -- commercial
There's another shareware one called Xnext too...
Peter A. Koren
In article <5hhon8$a...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>,
glha...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu says...
>
>snip
>
>Is there anything that would make it difficult to have an X-DPS/DPS-X
>interface? So you can write software with DPS, but translate it to X as
>needed?
>
I think the GnuStep effort is targetting ghostscript for X windows. Linux is
included of course. I hope to have a dual boot system, Rhapsody/Linux-GnuStep
8^). Would it be that hard to port the GnuStep DPS/X work over to Rhapsody?
Pete
John C. Randolph
"Eric A. Dubiel" <ead...@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu> writes:
[regarding the X virus code]
>Hell, it's FREE!!!
>After all that's what most everyone's familiar with. Look at Microsoft,
>they kept the DOS compatibility in place and they've KEPT users! I
>think NeXT-Apple will repel some potential users if they don't include
>it.
Excuse me? Repel whom? Mac people have been getting along fine without
X, and so have we NeXT users. X is what you use when you don't *have*
anything else to use. Hell, the w95 API is cleaner!
When it comes to the Linux crowd, I run into a *lot* of people saying
things like *if only* NeWS wasn't dead, or *if only* Ghostscript was
a full-blown DPS.
There are plenty of generic UNIX users who are intensely aware that
X sucks, that NFS is a joke from a security standpoint, etc.
>But like I said, if OPENSTEP goes to a standards body or GNU or
>something, then I think things will be alright. NeXT-Apple's taking the
>same attitude Microsoft is, it seems with their AFC for Java.
There are many things in NEXTSTEP that should go to ANSI or the IETF
for standardization. A few that pop into my mind are:
NeXTmail.
NetInfo
.pkg and .bom files.
DPS
Services
The defaults database
PDO
Property-list format files
And *of course* the OpenStep API.
I'd love to chair any of these comittees, if ANSI's interested!
-jcr
Arun Gupta
Gary W. Longsine <gary-n...@screaming.org> wrote:
>>
>> Including X in the default installation will encourage people to use X.
>> This is a crime against humanity. X is one of the *Worst* things that ever
>> happened to UNIX.
>
>Despite my earlier comments, I must say that I agree with John on this.
>Maybe it should be an optional shrinkwrap party, or be left up to 3rd party
>vendors.
This argument sounds a little like the Macintosh users not wanting
command line shells in Rhapsody...
-arun gupta
Leon von Stauber
In <5hhq4t$i03$1...@news.xmission.com> Don Yacktman wrote:
>glha...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory Loren Hansen) wrote:
>> Do 3rd-party solutions exist for compiling X-code on NeXT?
>
>coeXist -- commercial
>Cub'X -- commercial
>
>an X application appears as a NeXT window and are "rootless". It used to be
Right, you can do that w/ co-Xist.
>that you'd create a window to be your "root" window and X would run within
>that, like SoftPC, or else X would take over the whole screen, reducing
>interoperability between X and NEXTSTEP. (MouseX does that.)
>
>At any rate, yes, they exist. But they exist for NEXTSTEP, not for
OPENSTEP,
>and they don't run on Rhapsody, obviously. It would be nice if, say, the
I don't know about the status of Cub'X, I haven't heard anything about it
in quite a while. I can say for sure that it would take a miracle to
revive co-Xist.
____________________________________________________________________
Leon von Stauber http://www.occam.com/leonvs/
Occam's Razor, Game Designer <leo...@occam.com>
PSW Technologies, System Administrator <leo...@pswtech.com>
MIDS, Web Developer <leo...@mids.org>
"We have not come to save you, but you will not die in vain!"
Peter A. Koren
In article <qd4tdv5...@blues.cygnus.com>, spe...@cygnus.com says...
>
>snip
>And, to my way of thinking, X11 is not free. It comes with a lot of
>baggage that you don't think about, like its inevitable ties to ugly
>window managers, incredibly kludgy inter-client communications, and
>Motif.
>
>I still think it's vastly more important to get the applications
>working as well on NeXT as they do on X11, if not better (and that
>reminds me; I've got to publish my NeXTSTEP povray3 modifications
>sometime...)
>
X support should make it easier to port code from X to Rhapsody. Just Imagine
having povray3 running under X and the new OpenStep version running and
debugging on the same screen in a different set of windows.
One advantage of X on Rhapsody is to provide a bridge for the Unix/X community
to cross over to Rhapsody/OpenStep. The fact that X sucks is a good thing! It
makes the migration more likely. Unix users are not going to leave their
"bodily husks" (X windows apps) behind to rise to a higher level (Rhapsody).
Give them friendly and non leathal path.
Pete
Gary W. Longsine
In <5hhq4t$i03$1...@news.xmission.com> it appeared that Don Yacktman wrote:
>
> At any rate, yes, they exist. But they exist for NEXTSTEP, not for
OPENSTEP,
> and they don't run on Rhapsody, obviously. It would be nice if, say, the
> Interceptor) but the libraries were a third party add-on you could buy if
you
> want them. Sort of a "compatibility" solution for legacy customers that
> doesn't encourage people to try and use X (barf).
yes, this is highly desirable. the extant NeXTSTEP X-Windows software is not
pleasant to use. even in rootless mode, you are basically selecting between
using X, and using NeXT, at any given time, because you can't really see the
desktop when you select into an X application -- it gets greyed out.
the interceptor technology could fix this problem, and yeild seemless X
integration, which would be a very good thing around here (we have at least
one of darned near anything).
things like this would make it easier to sell Rhapsody into companies, too.
Why? Almost all of the big companies already have X. The nicer you play
with the other kids, the easier it is to get invited over.
Gary W. Longsine
In <5hhon8$a...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu> it appeared that Gregory Loren Hansen
wrote:
> In article <5hhcml$890$1...@xmission.xmission.com>,
> planetary <pla...@xmission.xmission.com> wrote:
> >If there's any company who can do X the right way, it's NeXT. There's no
> >technical reason why X11 can't be supported elegantly and natively in
> >Rhapsody.
>
> Is there anything that would make it difficult to have an X-DPS/DPS-X
> interface? So you can write software with DPS, but translate it to X as
> needed?
Sun did that with their version of OpenStep. It's generally a bad idea, but
it was pretty much necessary for Sun, since they were already hip-deep in X &
CDE. The result is basically that OpenStep on Solaris feels slower than X
apps on Solaris. Don't go there.
The "Right Thing" (TM) for X support on Rhapsody is to use the interceptor
display technology, originally developed to speed up Windows emmulation for
SoftPC, as Don Yacktman suggests. This would result in zippy, seemless X
support without screwing up all the cool stuff we already love about
OPENSTEP, and without adding years to the development cycle. (It could be
developed as a stand-alone app, and not tied to the release cycle for
Rhapsody. It could then ship with Rhapsody if ready to go, or ship later as
a package on the ftp site.)
David Young
In comp.sys.next.advocacy Gary W. Longsine <gary-n...@screaming.org> wrote:
: The "Right Thing" (TM) for X support on Rhapsody is to use the interceptor
: SoftPC, as Don Yacktman suggests. This would result in zippy, seemless X
: support without screwing up all the cool stuff we already love about
: OPENSTEP, and without adding years to the development cycle. (It could be
: developed as a stand-alone app, and not tied to the release cycle for
: Rhapsody. It could then ship with Rhapsody if ready to go, or ship later as
: a package on the ftp site.)
They'd be smart to contract Intuitive Systems to port CubX to Rhapsody,
since it's already X11R6 with Motif, rootless, banging-on-the-framebuffer,
and pretty solid. It doesn't support XShape, though, but I don't know
how you'd have shaped rootless windows with Interceptor..
--
# david young: oo developer, think new ideas east/onramp
# vox: 212.629.6800 x170 phax: 212.629.6850
# net: david...@thinkinc.com (MIME ok, NeXTmail better)
Eric A. Dubiel
planetary wrote:
> Yes, most existing NEXTSTEP and Mac users just want to run Mac apps. These
> users are the ones that Apple/NeXT can count on to adopt Rhapsody.
> However, Apple/NeXT wants to expand its user base, not just maintain the
> status quo.
YEAH. Come on guys and gals, Rhapsody should be more like IBM in the
sense that Rhapsody DOES IT ****ALL****.
End of story. No room for IS guys to bitch.
*******RHAPSODY IS COMPATIBLE WITH EVERYTHING WE WANT TO RUN********
Of course there needs to be some way to run Win32 executables, and that
should probably stay with Insignia...
> : Now, if we're talking about pulling in new user segments, wouldn't it
> : make more sense to work on including a good Windows emulator?
>
> Yes, if all things were equal. But since X is open and you can just
> download source code for it from MIT and port it without fear that MIT
> will change the specification on you just as you finish your
> implementation, X users are more cost effective to win over.
Yeah, no kidding, right?!!! ;)
Eric A. Dubiel
Peter A. Koren wrote:
> X support should make it easier to port code from X to Rhapsody. Just Imagine
> having povray3 running under X and the new OpenStep version running and
> debugging on the same screen in a different set of windows.
Yeah, no doubt. Or are we supposed to get Solaris OPENSTEP to do that?!
This seems to be SUN's strategy. NeXT-Apple simply CANNOT ignore the
X11 community, and be perceived as a company that *FINALLY* killed NIHS
(Not Invented Here Syndrome).
> One advantage of X on Rhapsody is to provide a bridge for the Unix/X community
> to cross over to Rhapsody/OpenStep. The fact that X sucks is a good thing! It
> makes the migration more likely. Unix users are not going to leave their
> "bodily husks" (X windows apps) behind to rise to a higher level (Rhapsody).
> Give them friendly and non leathal path.
My feelings exactly. I simply CANNOT see why others don't understand
this most important evolutionary fact.
Eric A. Dubiel
Peter A. Koren wrote:
> I think the GnuStep effort is targetting ghostscript for X windows. Linux is
> included of course. I hope to have a dual boot system, Rhapsody/Linux-GnuStep
> 8^). Would it be that hard to port the GnuStep DPS/X work over to Rhapsody?
It seems *SO* obvious that X11 is starting to die, and we're at the
phase of creating bridges to a new technology. If we don't create these
bridges, people are likely not to make the transition.
Most people won't walk off the cliff like lemmings for something
better. They want a bridge, to protect themselves. CYA!
i.e. DOS --> Windows, and why people didn't just jump to Mac OS (I know
there's other factors too).
John Kheit
"Chris Johnson" <jinx...@sover.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 28, 1997 1:25 AM, Eric A. Dubiel
> <mailto:ead...@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu> wrote:
> >Some people may be sorry to even hear me say it, but I think
> >X11 Support should be in Rhapsody for added compatibility, and
> >to fit in with most major UNIX installations.
> >
> Not in the standard install- and this had _better_ not get
> in the way of _real_ interfaces.
I think the free and commercial 3rd party X NeXT/OPENSTEP packages
should fill most people's X fix...
--
Thanks, be well, take care, later, John Kheit; Self expressed...
__________________________________________________________________
monoChrome, Inc. ASCII, MIME, PGP, SUN, & NeXTmail OK
NeXT/OPENSTEP Developer mailto:jkh...@cnj.digex.net
Telepathy, It's coming... http://www.cnj.digex.net/~jkheit
New York Law School You're dangerous because you're honest
Matt Kennel (Remove 'nospam' to reply)
On Sat, 29 Mar 1997 01:33:34 -0600, Eric A. Dubiel <ead...@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu> wrote:
:Rick Sanford wrote:
:>
:> In <333B44...@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu> "Eric A. Dubiel" wrote:
:> > Kinda reminds me of Apple/NeXT reinventing the wheel again. NIHS, Not
:> > Invented Here Syndrome.
Not using X is like "avoiding reinventing the square wheel".
--
Matthew B. Kennel/Institute for Nonlinear Science, UCSD/
Don't blame me, I voted for Emperor Mollari.
Stephen Peters
pko...@ti.com (Peter A. Koren) writes:
> In article <qd4tdv5...@blues.cygnus.com>, spe...@cygnus.com says...
> >I still think it's vastly more important to get the applications
> >working as well on NeXT as they do on X11, if not better (and that
> >reminds me; I've got to publish my NeXTSTEP povray3 modifications
> >sometime...)
>
> X support should make it easier to port code from X to
> Rhapsody. Just Imagine having povray3 running under X and the new
> OpenStep version running and debugging on the same screen in a
> different set of windows. [...] The fact that X sucks
> is a good thing! It makes the migration more likely.
Unfortunately, I don't think it works like that. You may recall the
old phrase that "Necessity is the mother of invention". Remove the
necessity, and most hackers won't have the impetus to change things.
X support could make it easier to port, but I doubt it. I think it
would just increase the chance that people will be lazy and decide
that the X version looks `good enough'. I'm not convinced I would
have cared enough to do the NeXTSTEP port if everyone had X on the
system (although it's possible; I _hate_ X colormap handling with the
white-hot fury of a thousand suns).
And I do think that X should be cheap or free on Rhapsody from a third
party. I just don't think Apple needs to have it installed on every
system to make the Unix users happy.
Phil Calvin
Eric A. Dubiel wrote:
>
> Some people may be sorry to even hear me say it, but I think X11 Support
> should be in Rhapsody for added compatibility, and to fit in with most
> major UNIX installations.
>
> Comments?!
Absolutely necessary. If I could download UNIX freeware from various
UNIX archives and run them on Rhapsody using X libraries, I'd be mighty
joyous. I don't care if these apps don't look "like a Mac". I just
want to run them.
Even just being able to display X on my Mac would be a step up... I
know it's available using eXodus but I want it built in to the
system... Can NeXTStep do that now? Can OPENSTEP?
Phil
Gregory Loren Hansen
In article <qdwwqns...@blues.cygnus.com>,
Stephen Peters <spe...@cygnus.com> wrote:
>Unfortunately, I don't think it works like that. You may recall the
>old phrase that "Necessity is the mother of invention". Remove the
>necessity, and most hackers won't have the impetus to change things.
>
>X support could make it easier to port, but I doubt it. I think it
>would just increase the chance that people will be lazy and decide
>that the X version looks `good enough'. I'm not convinced I would
>have cared enough to do the NeXTSTEP port if everyone had X on the
>system (although it's possible; I _hate_ X colormap handling with the
>white-hot fury of a thousand suns).
BeOS is POSIX-compliant (or mostly), and you can program it just like a
Unix machine. But most programmers, once they start working with Be,
never want to go back to the Unix machines because Be is just too cool to
code for.
I'd expect something similar with Rhapsody. In the first place, anyone
who wants to continue developing for Macs will learn DPS, not X, and
they'll write Mac apps in DPS. Some people using Rhapsody as their
version of Unix may start programming in X then move to DPS when they see
how much cooler it is. This will perhaps have a positive effect,
making DPS an accepted standard and X seem not as necessary as it once
was. In the meantime, people who continue writing for X will continue
writing for X, and will probably continue to be as unconcerned with the
Mac market as they were before. And, of course, anyone developing on
Rhapsody for the general Unix market will ignore DPS in any case, since
the general Unix market supports X whether we like it or not.
When you say people will be lazy and decide their X version looks good
enough, I think that would only be true of people writing software that
would never have made it to the Mac anyways. No net loss. It's very much
a free market thing. If DPS wins the hearts and minds of the Unix
community, it will be for being a superior product. If it doesn't, maybe
because it's controlled by and must be licensed from Adobe (unless a
GhostDPS shows up), then no finaggling by Apple will change that.
Eric A. Dubiel
Phil Calvin wrote:
> Even just being able to display X on my Mac would be a step up... I
For a *FREE* X Server for Mac OS & Windows, see
http://www.microimages.com/www/html/freestuf/mix.htm
--
Eric A. Dubiel; http://www.ilstu.edu/~eadubie
mailto:ead...@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu
ytalk ead...@138.87.201.11 --- MIME, SUN, NeXT, PGP Mail ok
R&D --- Instructional Technology Services --- Illinois State University
John C. Randolph
glha...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory Loren Hansen) writes:
>I'd expect something similar with Rhapsody. In the first place, anyone
>who wants to continue developing for Macs will learn DPS, not X, and
>they'll write Mac apps in DPS.
Not to be too nit-picky here, but nobody's *ever* written an app in DPS.
We write certain small portions of our GUI in DPS, but for the most part
we don't need to touch it, unless the app we're writing is a CAD package
or a drawing tool.
Shoot, back when I was working on an image editor under NeXTSTEP, I still
didn't deal much with DPS. FOr the most part, the work was just interfacing
our raster to a tricky subclass of NXBitmapImageRep. The postscript code
in that whole project was probably less than five hundred lines.
Whe I ws working on an app that drew directed, acylic graphs, the PS code
was under ten pages.
>Some people using Rhapsody as their
>version of Unix may start programming in X then move to DPS when they see
>how much cooler it is. This will perhaps have a positive effect,
>making DPS an accepted standard and X seem not as necessary as it once
>was.
X is alredy unneccessary. It's a pitiful excuse for a set of rasterOps.
Ass motif to it, and it's a pitiful knock-off of the worst GUI design that
*ever* made bill gates a billion bucks.
X by itself sucks. X + motif sucks worse. X+TCL/TK is almost useable,
since Ousterhout went to all the trouble of burying that lousy X API for us.
>In the meantime, people who continue writing for X will continue
>writing for X, and will probably continue to be as unconcerned with the
>Mac market as they were before. And, of course, anyone developing on
>Rhapsody for the general Unix market will ignore DPS in any case, since
>the general Unix market supports X whether we like it or not.
You forget, that as soon as Rhapsody ships, Rapsody's way of doing things
*is* the UNIX mainstream. Apple still sells more machines every month
that Sun sells annually.
As I've been saying, this is one of the most exciting things about the
Apple/NeXT merger: Its a chance to break UNIX loose from its worst
accumulations of cruft.
-jcr
Rob Rodgers
In article <5hrhtk$3nn$1...@inet-prime.comshare.com>, <al...@izzy.net> wrote:
>In <jcr.85...@idiom.com> John C. Randolph wrote:
><snip>
>> since Ousterhout went to all the trouble of burying that lousy X API for
>us.
>
>over-engineered, propellerheaded, &*%$#&.... If X is the answer, what was the
>question?
"How can we make Unix even more laughable while at the same time providing
just the right cool gizmo so all the morons who hate MS will jump up and
down in conniptions whenever anyone criticizes how crappy X is?"
[rhapsody's way of doing things "is" the unix mainstream]
>Agreed!!!!
Wont happen. Unix people have an aversion to good design. They'll
merely categorize Rhapsody a second class imitator much in the same way
they categorize languages which are vastly superior to C and (especially)
C++ as "too restrictive, mickey mouse."
al...@izzy.net
In <jcr.85...@idiom.com> John C. Randolph wrote:
<snip>
> X by itself sucks. X + motif sucks worse. X+TCL/TK is almost useable,
> since Ousterhout went to all the trouble of burying that lousy X API for
us.
>
This rings true, at least by me. X is a failure, a liability to UN*X. An
over-engineered, propellerheaded, &*%$#&.... If X is the answer, what was the
question?
> You forget, that as soon as Rhapsody ships, Rapsody's way of doing things
> *is* the UNIX mainstream. Apple still sells more machines every month
> that Sun sells annually.
>
> As I've been saying, this is one of the most exciting things about the
> Apple/NeXT merger: Its a chance to break UNIX loose from its worst
> accumulations of cruft.
Agreed!!!!
Regards,
Alan Frabutt (al...@izzy.net)
disclaimer: my opinions, not my employers.
Charles William Swiger
Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.next.advocacy: 1-Apr-97 Re: X11 Support
in Rhapsody by Rob Rod...@wam.umd.edu
> merely categorize Rhapsody a second class imitator much in the same way
> they categorize languages which are vastly superior to C and (especially)
> C++ as "too restrictive, mickey mouse."
I wonder who you're talking about? I'm a Unix advocate, and I don't
agree with almost any of your comments you've attributed.
I say "almost" because C and it's derivatives like C++ and Objective C
are probably the most functional set of languages ever invented-- C is
obviously a good choice for many problem domains. However, there are
lots of other problem domains which are well suited for other languages
like Java, Python, SmallTalk, Fortran, SML, LISP, and so forth. I don't
consider such languages "restrictive".
-Chuck
PS: What's been up with these strawman arguments? Why do people
overgeneralize in order to create a false position which they then claim
other people hold?
I'm pretty certain that RS cannot quote any recent Usenet article from
these .advocacy newsgroups from someone who was a Unix advocate who
called all non-C languages "mickey mouse", or anything similiar what's
claimed above.
Charles Swiger | cs...@andrew.cmu.edu | standard disclaimer
----------------+---------------------+---------------------
I know you're an optimist if you think I'm a pessimist.
John C. Randolph
rsro...@wam.umd.edu (Rob Rodgers) writes:
>[rhapsody's way of doing things "is" the unix mainstream]
>>Agreed!!!!
>Wont happen. Unix people have an aversion to good design. They'll
Excuse me, but I am a counter-example. I'm a "UNIX person", and I'm acutely
aware of its failings. I'd love to have a system as complete and well-
integrated as the dedicated LISP or Smalltalk machines of years past.
>merely categorize Rhapsody a second class imitator much in the same way
>they categorize languages which are vastly superior to C and (especially)
>C++ as "too restrictive, mickey mouse."
SOme will say so, sure. There are also people who think that HPUX is a
good implementation of UNIX. But, again: Apple will be the largest
volume UNIX vendor. That means that Mac users are the UNIX mainstream,
by definition.
-jcr
Support Engineer
For what it is worth, I am running X11 (R6.3) on Mach (via MkLinux) on my
7500/604/120, with AfterStep. (Next, GNUStep, hopefully).
Mike Paquette
For your amusement...
X. The defacto substandard.
X. Flawed beyond belief.
X. Accept any substitute.
X. The Cutting Edge of Obsolescence.
X. The trailing edge of software technology.
One thousand monkeys. One thousand MicroVAXes. One thousand years. X.
X. Japan's secret weapon.
If it works, it isn't X.
X. You'll envy the dead.
Incompatibility. Shoddiness. Uselessness. X.
X. Let it get in YOUR way.
X. The problem for your problem.
X. If it starts working, we'll fix it. Pronto.
X. It could be worse, but it'll take time.
X. Simplicity made complex.
X. Flakey and built to stay that way.
X. Complex nonsolutions to simple nonproblems.
The environment of today... tomorrow! X.
X. A bad idea whose time has come. And gone.
X. It didn't even look good on paper.
X. You laugh now, but you'll be laughing harder later!
X. A new concept in abuser interfaces.
X. How can something get so bad, so quickly?
X. It could happen to you.
X. The art of incompetence.
X. You have nothing to lose but your lunch.
X. When uselessness just isn't enough.
X. More than a mere hindrance. It's a whole new barrier!
X. Built to fall apart.
X. Nullifying centuries of progress.
X. Don't laugh. It could be YOUR thesis project.
X. Why do it right when you can do it wrong?
X. Live the nightmare.
X. You'll wish we were kidding.
X. Everything you never wanted in a window system. And more.
X. Dissatisfaction guaranteed.
X. There's got to be a better way.
X. Even your dog won't like it.
X. More than enough rope.
X. Garbage at your fingertips.
X. The last thing you need.
X. Something you can be ashamed of.
X. Warn your friends about it.
Hindenburg. Titanic. Edsel. X.
X. An accident that couldn't wait to happen.
X. Don't wait for the movie.
X. Never use it after a big meal.
X. Need we say less?
X. Power tools for power losers.
X. A software disaster of Biblical proportions.
X. Never had it. Never will.
X. More than just a generation behind.
X. The ultimate bottleneck.
X. It's not how slow you make it. It's how you make it slow.
X. The windowing system preferred by masochists 3 to 1.
X. Built to take on the world... and lose!
X. Don't try it 'til you've knocked it.
X. Power tools for Power Fools.
X. Putting new limits on productivity.
X. The closer you look, the cruftier we look.
X. Design by counterexample.
X. No hardware is safe.
X. Old-world software cruftsmanship at its finest.
X. Gratuitous incompatibility.
X. THE user interference management system.
X. You can't argue with failure.
X. You haven't died 'til you've used it.
X. The only thing you have to fear.
X. Somewhere between chaos and insanity.
X. The joke that kills.
--
I don't speak for my employer, whoever it is, and they don't speak for me.
mpa...@next.com Official business only NeXT Mail OK
mpa...@wco.com Non-business or personal mail NeXT mail OK
Eric A. Dubiel
John C. Randolph wrote:
> SOme will say so, sure. There are also people who think that HPUX is a
> good implementation of UNIX. But, again: Apple will be the largest
> volume UNIX vendor. That means that Mac users are the UNIX mainstream,
> by definition.
Speaking of which, has anyone heard plans for HPUX OPENSTEP? Sleeping
with the enemy (MS)?!!
What's up with Digital UNIX and OPENSTEP? Sleeping with the enemy
(MS)?
Hmm...at least SUN's on "our side". I think.
--
Eric A. Dubiel; http://www.ilstu.edu/~eadubie
mailto:ead...@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu
ytalk ead...@138.87.201.11 --- MIME, SUN, NeXT, PGP Mail ok
R&D --- Instructional Technology Services --- Illinois State University
"I first saw NEXTSTEP in 1990 and I was blown away."- Eric Schmidt,
Sang K. Choe
On 1 Apr 1997 17:50:44 GMT, al...@izzy.net wrote:
: This rings true, at least by me. X is a failure, a liability to UN*X. An
: over-engineered, propellerheaded, &*%$#&.... If X is the answer, what was the
: question?
"How do you clobber the client, server and network bandwidth in one
shot?"
I'll take World History for $200 next Alex.... :-)
-- Sang.
********************************************************
* Sang K. Choe san...@inlink.com *
* http://sangria.inlink.com/index.html *
* finger: sa...@sangria.inlink.com *
********************************************************
Sang K. Choe
On 28 Mar 1997 15:58:16 GMT, gary-n...@screaming.org (Gary W.
Longsine) wrote:
: In <333B1C...@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu> it appeared that "Eric A. Dubiel"
: wrote:
: > Some people may be sorry to even hear me say it, but I think X11 Support
: > should be in Rhapsody for added compatibility, and to fit in with most
: > major UNIX installations.
:
: X-11 support is *not* built into Windows or Windows NT.
The concept of having support for a platform independent windowing
protocol built into an OS is somewhat oxymoronic.
: In those markets,
: X-11 support is provided by a 3rd party vendor.
Even in Unix markets, X server support can be provided by third
parties.
Christopher Robato
In article <3342EA...@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu>,
ead...@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu wrote:
> John C. Randolph wrote:
> > SOme will say so, sure. There are also people who think that HPUX is a
> > good implementation of UNIX. But, again: Apple will be the largest
> > volume UNIX vendor. That means that Mac users are the UNIX mainstream,
> > by definition.
>
> Speaking of which, has anyone heard plans for HPUX OPENSTEP? Sleeping
> with the enemy (MS)?!!
>
> What's up with Digital UNIX and OPENSTEP? Sleeping with the enemy
> (MS)?
>
> Hmm...at least SUN's on "our side". I think.
Sun might be buying your side too you know.
Rgds,
Chris
--
*** A Poet and his PC ***
Edgar Allan Poe, after his Windows PC crashed, staring at
the blue screen of death. "Microsoft, nevermore, nevermore."
*** cro...@kuentos.guam.net ***
.
Shimpei Yamashita
<al...@izzy.net> writes:
>
>In <jcr.85...@idiom.com> John C. Randolph wrote:
><snip>
>> X by itself sucks. X + motif sucks worse. X+TCL/TK is almost useable,
>> since Ousterhout went to all the trouble of burying that lousy X API for
>us.
>>
>
>over-engineered, propellerheaded, &*%$#&.... If X is the answer, what was the
>question?
In defense of X (never thought I'd end up defending X! horrors), it *is*
the only standardized platform-independent protocol existing today for
executing graphical programs on remote machines. Such capabilities do come
in very handy sometimes, especially if you are on a LAN. You just can't
get this capability on Macs or Windows, at least not without shelling out
major amounts of money on each and every computer you'd like to add this
capability on. And even then, it often reeks of kludge since they were
never designed to be used over the network.
The tradeoff, as everyone will be quick to point out, is that
implementations of GUIs on X to date all suck, making *all* X applications
seem like a kludge....
--
Shimpei Yamashita <http://socrates.caltech.edu/%7Eshimpei/>
Matt McLeod
On 28 Mar 1997 03:59:47 GMT, andrew_a...@omnigroup.com <andrew_a...@omnigroup.com> wrote:
>pla...@xmission.xmission.com (planetary) wrote:
>> In comp.sys.next.advocacy Eric A. Dubiel <ead...@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu>
>> : Some people may be sorry to even hear me say it, but I think X11 Support
>> : should be in Rhapsody for added compatibility, and to fit in with most
>> : major UNIX installations.
>>
>> the adoption of NeXT by the workstation community. I hope sincerely that
>> they build a super fast X11 implementation into the core OS. XFree86 would
>> be fine.
>>
>> If Novell can put X11 and the AWT on IntranetWare I, Apple can integrate
>> X11 decently into Rhapsody.
>
>I'll register on this one. X11 should not be in Rhapsody, and I cannot
>imagine that it will be. It is, however, appropriate (and desireable)
>as an affordable third-party add-on.
How about Apple donates some money to XFree, in return for their porting
XFree to Rhapsody?
Then everyone is happy. X11 is available for Rhapsody, Apple didn't spend
much on it, and doesn't get diverted from the main game, and the X11 support
is not very expensive.
If XFree doesn't want to do it, there is bound to be someone who does.
I see X11 in Rhapsody as being a bit like Win-OS/2 in OS/2 - something to
help get more users on-board, with the goal that they'll eventually move
over to "native" apps.
--
Havelock Vetinari for P.M.!
Support Engineer
There is already a port of X11R6.3 to the PowerMac, however, it does run on
the Linux server layer between it and the Mach 3 kernal, but porting it
from the Linux server to the BSD server should be about all that would have
to be done.
Kenneth K. Lu
> This argument sounds a little like the Macintosh users not wanting
> command line shells in Rhapsody...
In a way... yes.
If Rhapsody is CL based.. then it will be little more than another
window manager.
I think the beauty of the MacOS today is that unlike 90% of other OS's..
it's GUI from the ground up.
-ToastyKen
------------------------------
| Kenneth Lu - ke...@mit.edu |
| http://www.mit.edu/~kenlu/ |
------------------------------
mmalcolm crawford
On 04/08/97, "Kenneth K. Lu" wrote:
>> This argument sounds a little like the Macintosh users not wanting
>> command line shells in Rhapsody...
>
>In a way... yes.
>
>If Rhapsody is CL based.. then it will be little more than another
>window manager.
>I think the beauty of the MacOS today is that unlike 90% of other OS's..
>it's GUI from the ground up.
>
I find it difficult to understand how, after so many weeks of debate, you
apparently fail to understand theat NeXT did not produce another X-Windows.
Many NEXTSTEP-users are unaware that there is a CLI, and there are few (if
any) occasions on which it is *required*, however for some people it is a
Good Thing. Please, take a look at, and use, NEXTSTEP before commenting
further; you will save a lot of wasted effort (yours and others').
Best wishes,
mmalc.
--
Malcolm Crawford (NeXTmail) mal...@plsys.co.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1494 432422 P & L Systems
Fax: +44 (0)1494 432478 http://www.plsys.co.uk/~malcolm
planetary
In comp.sys.next.advocacy Kenneth K. Lu <ke...@mit.edu> wrote:
: If Rhapsody is CL based.. then it will be little more than another
: window manager.
: I think the beauty of the MacOS today is that unlike 90% of other OS's..
: it's GUI from the ground up.
If you think Rhapsody will be more command-line-centric than OpenStep, you
haven't been listening to what Apple has been telling you. And OpenStep is
neither command-line based nor a mere window manager for Mach.
............kris
--
Kristopher Magnusson kr...@xmission.com (no NeXTmail, please)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contains freshness saver packet. DO NOT EAT.
Joe Ragosta
In article <5ihbsk$e...@xmission.xmission.com>, planetary
<pla...@xmission.xmission.com> wrote:
> In comp.sys.next.advocacy Kenneth K. Lu <ke...@mit.edu> wrote:
>
> : If Rhapsody is CL based.. then it will be little more than another
> : window manager.
> : I think the beauty of the MacOS today is that unlike 90% of other OS's..
> : it's GUI from the ground up.
>
> If you think Rhapsody will be more command-line-centric than OpenStep, you
> haven't been listening to what Apple has been telling you. And OpenStep is
> neither command-line based nor a mere window manager for Mach.
Rhapsody will offer, like the current MacOS, the ability to do _all_ your
work without ever seeing a command line.
However, Rhapsody will _also_ offer the ability to use command lines for
many (if not most) things.
Best of both worlds (although I, for one, don't expect to ever have to drop
into CLI).
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
joe.r...@dol.net
See the Complete Macintosh Advocacy Site
http://www.dol.net/~Ragosta/complmac.htm