Linux-Development-Sys Digest #885, Volume #6 Fri, 25 Jun 99 16:14:28 EDT
Contents:
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Why we are still holding on to X Windows (Peter.vanHelden)
Re: Need help porting DOS app that uses parallel port (Part II) (Chris A. Henesy)
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (Anthony Ord)
Re: Framebuffer device why doesn't it work? - again.... (Craig Graham)
Re: Framebuffer device why doesn't it work? - again.... (Medical Electronics Lab)
Re: TAPOs: configurations (Jonathan Abbey)
Re: Why we are still holding on to X Windows (Tristan Wibberley)
Re: Framebuffer device why doesn't it work? - again.... (Craig Graham)
Re: Why we are still holding on to X Windows (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Why we are still holding on to X Windows (Tristan Wibberley)
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (Christopher B. Browne)
Re: Why we are still holding on to X Windows (Chris Hedley)
Re: Why we are still holding on to X Windows (Chris Hedley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: TAO: the ultimate OS
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 16:46:18 GMT
On 25 Jun 1999 14:55:10 GMT, void <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 25 Jun 1999 05:06:52 GMT, Terry Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>[I]t's hard to get pointy haired managers to
>>buy a systems which doesn't conform to the "P" word.
>
>They seem to like NT well enough.
This appears to be a result of their being pointy-haired... :-)
[.sigsnip]
----
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- one might call it "dual overhead dunce caps" :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: TAO: the ultimate OS
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 16:45:21 GMT
On 25 Jun 1999 15:11:40 GMT, void <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Jun 1999 14:43:47 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Wed, 23 Jun 1999 17:21:57 -0600, Bill Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>An OS should not dictate how a random app stores it's data.
>>
>>Too late; most operating systems do just that. :-)
>>
>>In particular, the file system (usually part of an OS)
>>specifies where such things as file names, data blocks,
>>and other data such as permissions is stored. Coupled
>>with the implementation code deep within the OS for
>>allocation, the OS specifies, in grotesque detail
>>(at least at the software level) [*] exactly where
>>a random app stores its data -- and the random
>>app doesn't care!
>
>That's Mr. Anderson's point, if I'm not mistaken. He doesn't mean that
>the OS shouldn't specify the format on disk, he means that the OS should
>provide a general I/O API and let the programmer choose the *logical*
>formatting of the data. Bill, correct me if I'm wrong.
True, I was being slightly pedantic; my apologies for any confusion. :-)
I have worked with strongly-typed file systems in the past
(VAX/VMS, Apollo DOMAIN/Aegis). They are a bit of a pain.
[.sigsnip]
----
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter.vanHelden)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Why we are still holding on to X Windows
Date: 25 Jun 1999 14:22:22 GMT
Mario Klebsch ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
[snip]
: X only includes Xaw, and it can't compete with windows. You can argue
: about Motif, but who the hell does use it? Especially Linux normaly
The commercial Unix world does.
Peter
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris A. Henesy)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Need help porting DOS app that uses parallel port (Part II)
Date: 24 Jun 1999 18:18:23 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Randy Olinger spewed forth:
>inport and outport send buffers to the actual chips on the motherboard, which
>is illegal for a unix or Linux application. You have two choices.
>
>1. Least Favorable - Write a device driver (kernel extension) that will talk
>to the hardware and do what you need.
>
>2. Most favorable - Find out what hardware the DOS application was sending
>the data to using the inport and outport functions and use an existing driver
>that most likely alredy exists. (Drivers are written for most everything
>you can put on a motherboard except USB and IR, but DOS cannot use them
>either)
This is a computer interface board I bought from velleman
(www.velleman.be) and soldered together myself. The card basicly hooks to
your parallel port and allows your PC to interact with any external
electronic device. I has 16 digital outputs that can be turned on and
off, 16 digital inputs whose on/off status can be read, and a couple
analogue inputs and outputs as well. I'm pretty darn sure there is no
linux driver for it.
What THEY provide with the board is a single C "function library"?
containing c functions for initializing and reading and writing to the
card. This c file is meant to be compiled under DOS and uses functions
that read and write directly to the IO buffers of the port (inport and
outport). They also provide several example programs which put together
the read and write function from the "function library" to make the card do
something interesting like turn a heater on if the temp drops.
So it sounds to me like the best thing for me to do is grab a copy of
"Linux Device Drivers" and "port" the "function library" into a device
driver. The hard part is done really. The C code detailing the
communications protocol with the card is provided. I just have to add the
code to make it a kernel module, and to have it talk through the
appropriate kernel interfaces to the parallel port and not directly
to the hardware. How close am I here? Anyone have any suggestions as to
which kernel modules I should use as an example? What kernel code I
should look at to start with?
Thanks for any and all help,
Chris
--
"(America is) a country where a dual morality, hypocrisy and nonsense have
been allowed to dominate politics and the mass media for years, and this
doesn't make it look so reliable as a world policeman..."
-The Swedish Newspaper Aftonbladet
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Anthony Ord)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: TAO: the ultimate OS
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 17:20:47 GMT
On 24 Jun 1999 09:42:29 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K.
Fellows) wrote:
>In article <7krvpq$eou$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Terry Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Published studies have concluded that software engineers who follow the
>> design->code paradigm are more efficient and productive than those who
>> follow the edit->compile->test paradigm, and that the most productive
>> software engineers are those who spend the least amount of time in
>> front of a computer (and, yes, I can provide bilbiographic citations to
>> back this up).
>
>OK, provide them.
>
>I suspect that the design->code and edit->compile->test paradigms are
>tuned towards tackling separate problems...
Well design->code is pretty much limited to knowing what you
want to code. If you don't know that, you obviously can't
design it in a detailed way. If you want to "develop" the
solution, then you're pretty much stuck with
edit->compile->test. Anything with a version number came
through that technique.
Of course you can fudge it for the benefit of PHBs in that
the design follows the code.
>(Has anyone developed a commercial OS yet using a proper formal design
>technique? Or are those only ever used in the safety-critical domain?)
>
>Donal.
Regards
Anthony
--
=========================================
| And when our worlds |
| They fall apart |
| When the walls come tumbling in |
| Though we may deserve it |
| It will be worth it - Depeche Mode |
=========================================
------------------------------
From: Craig Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Framebuffer device why doesn't it work? - again....
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 15:22:06 +0000
Craig Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've asked this before, and still got nowhere.....anyway.
>=20
> How do I get the framebuffer consoles to work (/dev/fb0, etc).
> I have an S3 Virge video card, and I'm running kernal 2.2.9.
I followup to my own post - can I just add:=20
o Yes, I am aware that you have to recompile the kernel with the
framebuffer enabled.
o Yes, it is enabled.
o Yes I have read all the relevant howto's - there seem's to be a bit of =
"and
then a miracle occurs" going on there somewhere, between compile,
mknod and reboot.
This post is as a result of the one unhelpful mail I got which said=20
"you gotta recompile the kernel"=20
- wow. very informative that was
Anyone who has the faintest idea what's going on please get in touch
(preferably someone who's compiled 2.2.9 with framebuffer support and had
it actually work on an S3 Virge card).
Craig Graham.
Still puzzled. And hoping someone's already got it working so he doesn't
have to debug it himself.
------------------------------
From: Medical Electronics Lab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Framebuffer device why doesn't it work? - again....
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 12:54:51 -0500
Craig Graham wrote:
> I followup to my own post - can I just add:
> o Yes, I am aware that you have to recompile the kernel with the
> framebuffer enabled.
> o Yes, it is enabled.
> o Yes I have read all the relevant howto's - there seem's to be a bit of "and
> then a miracle occurs" going on there somewhere, between compile,
> mknod and reboot.
>
> This post is as a result of the one unhelpful mail I got which said
> "you gotta recompile the kernel"
> - wow. very informative that was
>
> Anyone who has the faintest idea what's going on please get in touch
> (preferably someone who's compiled 2.2.9 with framebuffer support and had
> it actually work on an S3 Virge card).
>
> Craig Graham.
> Still puzzled. And hoping someone's already got it working so he doesn't
> have to debug it himself.
I've got 2.2.5 and an SiS620 on the motherboard, so I'm probably
not of much help. But I did get framebuffers to work with X after
a lot of effort just this past week. If you want to send me e-mail
and don't mind me asking lots of dumb questions, maybe we can figure
it out. Chances are good you'll be debugging it your self tho.
write me at home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Patience, persistence, truth,
Dr. mike
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Abbey)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: TAPOs: configurations
Date: 25 Jun 1999 10:03:35 -0500
In article <7kvgrk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Alexander Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
| Paolo Torelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| >> I assure you the OS of the future is not going to have text based
| >> configuration files .. at least at the core. I think there is always
| >Indeed. text files are by all means larger and harder to mantain.
|
| So you never did any kind of sysadmin job, right?
Text files are great because it is easy to script with them, but a
well-designed configuration system wrapped with a good and flexible
API can provide the same sort of scripting advantages to something
like Python, say.
Text files are vulnerable to breakage because they can be changed in
random ways by mistake.. a good configuration database could still be
corrupted, but at least changes made to it would not suffer from
spaces instead of tabs, and the like. Having an API that changes go
through also allows for sanity testing of changes, automatic backups,
transactions, and many other good things, which can help mitigate
Christopher Browne's comments on the basic fragility of such systems.
That is, while it may be true in practice that if your text
configuration file gets a bad block in the middle of it you may still
be able to read the blocks that weren't hosed with a good inode
scanner, the reality is that you'd much rather have a system to have
made backups for you so that you can recover the whole file from an
earlier state than to try to piece things together without such.
If you start getting into the land where you provide selective
privileges to edit portions of your configuration data, text files
become as much a hindrance as a blessing. If you do put things into a
binary database, though, you have to be very sure that you don't take
power away from the hard-core admin who really has to do a global
search and replace, or whatever.
--
===============================================================================
Jonathan Abbey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Applied Research Laboratories The University of Texas at Austin
Ganymede, a free NIS/DNS management system http://www.arlut.utexas.edu/gash2
------------------------------
From: Tristan Wibberley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Why we are still holding on to X Windows
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 18:31:19 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mario Klebsch wrote:
>
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >Michael Gu wrote:
>
> >>If Microsoft is a monopoly, X Windows acts more like a monopoly in the
> >>Unix world.
> >>
> >>Let's face it. X Windows is a really premitive base for modern GUI,
> >>terrible font support breaks GUI all the time, no sound capability, ....
> >>If Linux is going to desktops to compete with Microsoft, it got to come
> >>up with something much better then X.
> >>
> >>So, why don't we drop the X and innovate?
>
> >X is at least 5 to 10 years ahead of anything Microsoft has going. They
>
> Well, it is 5 to 10 years ahead and probably over 10 years behind at
> the same time.
>
> >are working like crazy to get terminal server and Citrix to be reliable.
> >We have what they are trying to do already.
>
> This is one aera, where XC is ahead. :-)
>
> >With X, I can run a program anywhere on any machine, Windows can't touch
> >that.
>
> >As for Audio, what the hell does a GUI have to do with audio? Yes, Linux
> >needs a standard networked streaming audio spec, but that is not "X."
>
> It has nothing to do with X, but with the users session. When I have a
> session sitting in front of display xxx, I expect my sound to creap out
> of the speakers standing next to that display, and not entertaining the
> sysop in the computer room. :-)
>
> >You may be confusing X with the Window manager. X is conceptually a
> >display driver/interface. The Window manager is more of the GUI
> >component. The way the applications look and the way the system feels,
> >is part of the WIndow manager. The act of drawing primitives and getting
> >mouse and keyboard data is where X is.
>
> And you seem to confuse look&feel with a window manager. Surely, on a
> text window (like xterm), the window manager is the only visable thing,
> so it seems like look. But the feel depends much more on the widget set
> used, but on the window manager.
>
> >If you want to look at a good Window manager / Desktop system, take a
> >look at KDE.
>
> Well, it is quiet nice, but far from being standard. Let's face it,
> windows really is ahead of X, when it comes to the widgets and more
> important consistency among the applications.
I've seen many applications on windows that do not look the same as the
others (eg winamp). You cannot force a look, apps look how their
programmers want them to look, nothing else. If all programmers wrote
their apps using the same widget set, then graphical UNIX programs would
all be consistent. There is no standard look on any graphical computer
system, only looks which application programmers have agreed to use
(mostly due to being to lazy to make their programs look better).
> X only includes Xaw, and it can't compete with windows. You can argue
> about Motif, but who the hell does use it? Especially Linux normaly
> does not include Motif.
X is not all there is to UNIX, just like windows GDI is not all there is
to windows.
X alone cannot compare to MS Windows, but MS Windows GDI cannot compare
to X. Put the rest of a UNIX system together and compare that to Windows
instead.
It's like saying that MS Windows GDI should be scrapped because it does
not include a widget set or sound support (which it doesn't). The
problem is that if you scrap MS Windows GDI, you'll have to re-write
everything which uses it. Same goes for X, it's a thing which can be
used if you want to.
> And when it comes to consitency, the UNIX people alway dream about the
> ability to choose amound hundreds of widget sets (Xaw, Xaw3d, Motif,
> Lesstif, Gtk, Qt, ...), but in reality almos no one can choose. Only
> the author of a program can choose, the user of a program cannot. He
> has to live with the design decision, the autor took. And since each
> author does his own decision, there is not much consistency among
> different applications.
Same for *ANY* computer system: Borland OWL, MFC, GTK, wxWindows, or any
of the other toolkits available for windows, or even direct to GDI. The
programmer decides, the user doesn't. I think you are very confused
about what an OS does. An OS does not stop application developers from
choosing how to make their apps look - no OS does, not one, not UNIX,
not MS Windows, not BeOS, not MacOS, none of them. Apps can only look
the same because the person who wrote it decided to do that.
> There even isn't a standard api, since several pupular widget sets
> even do not use the Intrinsics.
What API *should* we all use? I'm sure we're all waiting for you to give
us one that we *all* love to write for.
> So, there still is a long way to go...
No there isn't :)
--
Tristan Wibberley Linux is a registered trademark
of Linus Torvalds.
------------------------------
From: Craig Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Framebuffer device why doesn't it work? - again....
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 19:03:14 +0000
Medical Electronics Lab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've got 2.2.5 and an SiS620 on the motherboard, so I'm probably
> not of much help. But I did get framebuffers to work with X after
> a lot of effort just this past week. If you want to send me e-mail
> and don't mind me asking lots of dumb questions, maybe we can figure
> it out. Chances are good you'll be debugging it your self tho.
Thanks - I'm not bothered about getting X to work with it, all I want is
for /dev/fb0 to exist so I can open it from a command line app and use
it to generate graphics directly.....
> Patience, persistence, truth,
> Dr. mike
Craig.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Why we are still holding on to X Windows
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 17:29:48 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Thu, 24 Jun 1999 13:19:52 -0700...
..and Michael Gu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Matthias Warkus wrote:
>
> > It was the Wed, 23 Jun 1999 13:29:17 -0700...
> > ..and Junyang Gu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > If Microsoft is a monopoly, X Windows acts more like a monopoly in the
> > > Unix world.
> >
> > Blech. There are several independent implementations of X11, some by
> > commercial vendors in direct competition, some by non-profit
> > organisations.
> >
>
> Are they doing stuff conform to X or something completely new?
Both of it, due to the wondrous concept of a standardised extension
architecture. They implement the X protocol and provide several
extensions in their implementations, some standardised by others
(SHAPE, XINPUT, MIT-SCREENSAVER), some created by them.
>
> >
> > > Let's face it. X Windows is a really premitive base for modern GUI,
> >
> > How so?
>
> Simply put, it doesn't have enough functionality, and standardizations of
> advanced features like widgets are important to guarantee a common look on
> multi-platforms.
If looks is all you care about... go the way commercial Unix went, use
Motif (the standard toolkit on X). Many people still do that.
> > > terrible font support breaks GUI all the time,
> >
> > My XFree86 server supports about every kind of font under the sun, how
> > does that break any GUI?
> >
> > > no sound capability, ....
> >
> > How is that needed in X? EsounD works just fine.
> >
>
> Sorry, I didn't know I need that to get sound. Sould it come along?
Actually, sound is something the kernel deals with, but EsounD (for
example) takes care of mixing sounds and remoting them across a
network. Rplay can do the same for you. For example, FVWM2 usually
makes noise via Rplay while
> > > If Linux is going to desktops to compete with Microsoft, it got to come
> > > up with something much better then X.
> > >
> > > So, why don't we drop the X and innovate?
> >
> > Please, inform yourself. The Frequently Rehashed Topics list could be
> > a good starting point.
> >
>
> Inform myself about what? How X works? How technically advanced it is? How
> good it SHOULD be? How many hours I need before understanding its power?
If you want to whine and make claims about something on a public
forum, know what you are talking about or else shut up.
> After all, you may argue that Linux/X is designed for computer professionals
> only, then I will have nothing more to say.
The point is that you can only have something meaningful to say about
something if you know what it is.
mawa
--
I'm spinning through the apartment like a whirling dervish, finishing
things I'd put off for months. These Methadrine suppositories are
fantastic!
-- Mark Lenyer: My Cousin, My Gastroenterologist
------------------------------
From: Tristan Wibberley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Why we are still holding on to X Windows
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 18:53:31 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
David Fox wrote:
>
> Marcus Sundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > Let's face it. X Windows is a really premitive base for modern GUI,
> > > terrible font support breaks GUI all the time, no sound capability, ....
> >
> > What the hell has sound got to do with GUIs or fonts?
>
> I must say that this thread has changed my mind on this point. X
> handles screen output, but it also handles mouse and keyboard input.
> Why? Because they are part of the user interface - the "UI" in "GUI",
No, It's only because they are part of the window system - the "Window
System" in "The X Window System". Sound is not a part of the window
system.
How many times does it need to be said? X is *NOT* a user interface! It
is only a specifically limited *part* of one.
> and the events that are generated need to be coordinated with the
> events that generate the screen output. It is now little funny to
> hear someone say "What the hell has sound got to do with GUIs..."
Yes, that is quite silly since GUI does not reference the Graphical bits
of a User Interface, it references a user interface with graphics.
Though X isn't the whole of one of those anyway.
--
Tristan Wibberley Linux is a registered trademark
of Linus Torvalds.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher B. Browne)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: TAO: the ultimate OS
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 03:37:54 GMT
On Thu, 24 Jun 1999 18:29:06 -0700, Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>On 24 Jun 1999 10:18:49 GMT,
> Stefaan A Eeckels, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>>> Perhaps, but I very rarely see design documents or requirements
>>> documents for anything that comes out of the free software community.
>>Agreed. What you describe is a typical "commercial" document. I've
>>been on enough commercial prjects to know that such a document is
>>hardly ever an accurate description of the final product, and more
>>often than not it's left to rot (or to be perused by the auditors).
>
>
>Or as is often the case, the "design document" gets written afterwords
>to document what you did, not what you planned to do...
And, with some of the more massive efforts, the "design documents" get
written by graduate students and professors seeking tenure.
Some Linux efforts seem to regard academia as an enemy, rather than as a
useful partner that *wants* to have things to write long tomes about...
--
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
-- Henry Spencer <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - "What have you contributed to free software today?..."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Hedley)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Why we are still holding on to X Windows
Date: 25 Jun 1999 18:28:14 GMT
In article <780A83616B05D31196800020484025005CB946@seubpebas54>,
Michael Gu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If Microsoft is a monopoly, X Windows acts more like a monopoly in the
> Unix world.
Let's get that right: X Windows acts more like a standard for other
operating systems to use.
> Let's face it. X Windows is a really premitive base for modern GUI,
> terrible font support breaks GUI all the time, no sound capability, ....
> If Linux is going to desktops to compete with Microsoft, it got to come
> up with something much better then X.
X isn't the desktop, it's the (extremely flexible and poweful) protocol
on which a desktop may be built. Desktops may be minimalistic, such as
the Athena/TWM combo, or extremely advanced, such as KDE or GNOME/
Enlightenment. Choose the one that suits you best; the more complex
ones, along with the basic option of choice, puts them years ahead of
the MS windowing environment IMO. Some integration/synchronisation of
sound that can float between workstations/servers would be nice, but
that's being worked on and, in today's currently PC-orientated world,
what currently exists does quite nicely IMO.
> So, why don't we drop the X and innovate?
I'd like to see a proposal that does even half of what X offers and
does it half as well on half as many platforms. I don't expect to see
anything RSN.
Chris.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Hedley)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Why we are still holding on to X Windows
Date: 25 Jun 1999 18:19:45 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, but that has NOTHING to do with X. X is very consistent. I can run
> a program on virtually any UNIX machine with X and display it on
> virtually any other UNIX machine with X.
Hey, don't constrain yourself. X11 isn't restricted to Unix, it works
quite happily on other systems as well (for example, VMS has excellent
X support) And don't think it's restricted to the bog-standard TCP/IP
environment, it'll work over other net protocols as well (expanding on
the above example, DECnet phases IV and V)
I think that's it's greatest strength: not only is it *very* flexible
and powerful, but since it runs on many systems on all sorts of hardware
and over various networking protocols, that pretty much makes it the
standard for GUIs IMO. It's the likes of MS with their tarted-up
console who're standing out in the cold.
Chris.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.development.system) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Development-System Digest
******************************
