Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.apps Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!foxhound.dsto.gov.au!fang.dsto.gov.au!yoyo.aarnet.edu.au!news.adelaide.edu.au!news.cs.su.oz.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msuinfo!agate!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!hasty From: hasty@netcom.com (Amancio Hasty Jr) Subject: Re: X11 concept (was: Re: DOOM for X) Message-ID: <hastyCMKnsM.8zw@netcom.com> Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) References: <1994Mar10.123047.15912@swan.pyr> <hastyCMGpA7.Gu5@netcom.com> <MBI.94Mar11090929@mo.math.nat.tu-bs.de> Date: Sat, 12 Mar 1994 22:00:21 GMT Lines: 28 In article <MBI.94Mar11090929@mo.math.nat.tu-bs.de> mbi@mo.math.nat.tu-bs.de writes: > >>If you ask me X is very, very broken in this respect. > >Apparently not. > > > Apparently yes, any client-server model which forces you to always have > two processes to communicate with each other is a broken architecture. > >I think, the client / server model is a very powerful concept. >No direct memory access graphics allow you to run the application on one >machine and see the output on a different one (or even on SOME different >ones, i.e. more than one machine) >I admit that the "direct" solution is faster, (That's why most >arcade games use Mess-Dos) but X was designed looking towards the future, >where communication and machines are fast. (I think) I think X was conceived in the days when dedicated graphic hardware cost was very high and limited in quantity not to mentioned that the CPUs were not that powerful;hence, a great need to have a client server model but not a server-client. Cheers, Amancio -- FREE unix, gcc, tcp/ip, X, open-look, interviews, tcl/tk, MIME, midi, sound at freebsd.cdrom.com:/pub/FreeBSD Amancio Hasty, Consultant | Home: (415) 495-3046 | e-mail hasty@netcom.com | ftp-site depository of all my work: ahasty@cisco.com | sunvis.rtpnc.epa.gov:/pub/386bsd/X