From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 20:43:21 -0600 Subject: [TUHS] X and NeWS history (long) In-Reply-To: <201709130056.v8D0uCix029857@darkstar.fourwinds.com> References: <201709111649.v8BGnGTx005812@darkstar.fourwinds.com> <20170911230910.GH7819@mcvoy.com> <201709120738.v8C7ckOF007026@freefriends.org> <201709121535.v8CFZOuB015695@darkstar.fourwinds.com> <201709122211.v8CMB3pf029787@darkstar.fourwinds.com> <6C032165-08F5-47CA-A30A-AD95E69996FE@bitblocks.com> <201709130056.v8D0uCix029857@darkstar.fourwinds.com> Message-ID: <45369b52-ca6a-e9c8-06cd-79122d044dee@tnetconsulting.net> On 09/12/2017 06:56 PM, Jon Steinhart wrote: > Wow, big topic. Rather than getting into it in detail at the moment I'm curious > as to why you think that it's important for it to work over a network. I personally really like the ability to SSH to a machine (*) using -XY and run Oracle's installer such that it's display shows up on my notebook. I find that SO MUCH EASIER than trying to get the iDRAC / RSA / IMM / etc to work. Usually they require multiple ports and protocols (often UDP, which is a pain through SSH). For me, X11 forwarding just works. - Thank you to everyone that spent so much time and energy getting it to work. > Before you bite my head off for that question, I'm not suggesting that there's > no value in taking data from somewhere on a network and using it on a local > machine. I think there's a distinct and large difference in data and display I/O. > Back in the darker ages of the Green Flash (Tektronix storage tubes like the > 4014) it was common to display remote data on a local system. The data in > those days arrived via RS-232. Depending on the application, one could shovel > 4014 commands over the wire or just raw data and use a local program to generate > drawing commands. I've often contemplated SIXEL graphics in an error prompt from remote systems. (This is a different topic, which itself relies on answer back.) > I've never been convinced that the way that X did it made sense. Sure, you'd > here people say things like "your remote Cray can draw stuff on your local > screen." But it wasn't just that; using X your Cray also had to draw and > manage your user interface: scroll bars, buttons, and so on unless you wanted > to create a separate protocol so that you could run your user interface > locally and have it communicate with the remote application. Of course, X was > enough of a pig that maybe using a Cray to drive a scroll bar made sense :-) Maybe I'm a n00b and don't know better, but I'd think that would be a use case for nested X running on a local (closer than the Cray) machine. So all the Cray needed to do was to send program I/O to the (nested) X server. Then the (nested) X server could handle scroll bars and other local window manager eye candy. I think the Cray would run something much like X does if you aren't running a window manager. Simple, single application, no frills. I think. > So before getting off into graphics APIs I think that it would be interesting > to hash this out. > > BTW, one of the best things about NeWS was the fact that with a reasonable set > of conventions the user interface personality could live in the server and be > applied to all applications. Contrast that with X where each application links > in a UI library, and if your screen looks anything like mine there isn't a lot > of consistency because different applications use different libraries. > > One of the problems with NeWS was that this was so much fun to play with that > the people doing the work kept on coming up with new ideas faster than they > could implement the old ones so there was difficulty completing toolkit > projects. LOL Feeping Creatureism? -- Grant. . . . unix || die -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3717 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: