>> Lack of device independency, lack of easy server expandability, for
>> two. If you have access to the _Unix Hater's Handbook_, read chapter
>> 7; I believe excerpts from it are available on the web somewhere.
>What exactly is device independence? X can handle generic SVGA cards
If you want to draw a line on an X display, you have to tell the
server to "draw a line from these pixel coordinates to those pixel
coordinates" - in other words, if you want to draw a 5cm long line,
you have to know how many pixels per cm there are; if you want to fill
the screen, you first have to ask the server how many pixels there are
Decent protocols use things like Display PostScript to avoid the
entire pixel mess; then, you don't have to worry about things like the
aspect ratio of the screens either. Much better.
Quote:> What is server expandibility?
In OOP terms you might say, "the ability to download programming
objects into the server". For example, if your client program draws a
lot of pictures of keyboard keycaps for some reason, it could
download a few lines of code to the server which draws one keycap, and
then after that just tell the server to run that code whenever it
wanted a new keycap drawn; this saves on network bandwidth, and most
importantly it keeps the "drawing" business in the server where it
See http://web.kaleida.com/u/hopkins/unix-haters.html for more
Quote:>Anyway, what are the alternatives to X?
All too few. Sun had a system called NeWS; I'm not certain if it still
exists, but it was probably technically the best one. NeXTStep still
lives. MGR might not be practical except in very limited scenarios.
Don't get me wrong, I wish there was something that could kill X off;
but the fact that there probably isn't, doesn't make X any better.
" ... got to contaminate to alleviate this loneliness
i now know the depths i reach are limitless... "