From: ziggy@grafted.UUCP (anthony lewis)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Subject: Offical windows
Date: 27 Apr 92 23:56:08 GMT
Organization: GRAFTED, Central Indiana's Usenet BBS 317-881-4369
Since there is some interest in MGR, why dont we make it the "offical"
windowing system for Linux. I know it is not as powerful as "X", but
being more manageable, there would be alot more people that could
write for it....
Ziggy.
--
anthony lewis
The Grafted Branch BBS
317-881-4369
internet: ziggy@grafted.UUCP
uucp: ..!uunet!grafted.UUCP!ziggy
= = Grafted Branch BBS (317) 889-6997 2 Gig on-line = =
From: ziggy@grafted.UUCP (anthony lewis)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Subject: Compress
Date: 28 Apr 92 00:01:43 GMT
Organization: GRAFTED, Central Indiana's Usenet BBS 317-881-4369
Just for the record, I think it would be a better idea to use
'compress' to be more generic to UNIX.... Just my 3 cents....
Ziggy
--
anthony lewis
The Grafted Branch BBS
317-881-4369
internet: ziggy@grafted.UUCP
uucp: ..!uunet!grafted.UUCP!ziggy
= = Grafted Branch BBS (317) 889-6997 2 Gig on-line = =
From: dwd@mcs213f.cs.umr.edu (Dan DeNise)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Offical windows
Date: 28 Apr 92 14:37:29 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla
In article < 08VwJB5w161w@grafted.UUCP> ziggy@grafted.UUCP (anthony lewis) writes:
>Since there is some interest in MGR, why dont we make it the "offical"
>windowing system for Linux. I know it is not as powerful as "X", but
>being more manageable, there would be alot more people that could
>write for it....
> Ziggy.
and in article < kHwwJB6w161w@grafted.UUCP> ziggy@grafted.UUCP (anthony lewis) writes:
> Just for the record, I think it would be a better idea to use
>'compress' to be more generic to UNIX.... Just my 3 cents....
>
> Ziggy
I think compatibility with the rest of the unix world is just as
important in the choice of windowing systems as in the choice of
compression systems. Go with X because that's what most of the
software we're going to want ported will be written to.
--
Daniel W. DeNise E-mail: c0016@umrvmb.umr.edu
Computing Services Phone: 1.314.341.4841
University of Missouri-Rolla USMail: 114 Math/Computer Science
Missouri's Technological University Rolla, MO, 65401
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
From: wcn@cs.brown.edu (Wen-Chun Ni)
Subject: Re: Offical windows
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1992 15:46:21 GMT
In article < 4992@umriscc.isc.umr.edu> dwd@mcs213f.cs.umr.edu (Dan DeNise) writes:
>
>I think compatibility with the rest of the unix world is just as
>important in the choice of windowing systems as in the choice of
>compression systems. Go with X because that's what most of the
>software we're going to want ported will be written to.
>--
Please forgive my ignorance. How many bytes are need to get an X
server working? I've never seen any 386-based Unix, so I have no
knowledge about that. The Sparcstation with 16mb running X is
snappy, but 386? Or should we get a 486 with at least 8mb to run
an X? Any information is welcome.
Wen-Chun Ni
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
From: zmbenhal@isis.cs.du.edu (Zeyd M. Ben-Halim)
Subject: Re: Offical windows
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 92 07:09:32 GMT
dwd@mcs213f.cs.umr.edu (Dan DeNise) writes:
>In article < 08VwJB5w161w@grafted.UUCP> ziggy@grafted.UUCP (anthony lewis) writes:
>>Since there is some interest in MGR, why dont we make it the "offical"
>>windowing system for Linux. I know it is not as powerful as "X", but
>>being more manageable, there would be alot more people that could
>>write for it....
>> Ziggy.
>I think compatibility with the rest of the unix world is just as
>important in the choice of windowing systems as in the choice of
>compression systems. Go with X because that's what most of the
>software we're going to want ported will be written to.
>--
Well, linus has just said on comp.os.minix that X WORKS but is not to be
released to the "masses" yet!
The question is WHY NOT? Even if it is not working properly, couldn't we at
least hear about the effort involved in porting X (setting modes, reading,
writing to the screen memory, switching banks, etc.)
Some of that code would be useful to people who are trying to port other
graphics programs.
Zeyd
From: torvalds@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Benedict Torvalds)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Offical windows
Date: 29 Apr 92 09:10:15 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki
In article < 1992Apr29.070932.25201@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> zmbenhal@isis.cs.du.edu
(Zeyd M. Ben-Halim) writes:
>
>Well, linus has just said on comp.os.minix that X WORKS but is not to be
>released to the "masses" yet!
Don't take it too hard: I'm also part of "masses" - I haven't seen it
working on my own machine yet... obz has been porting it for a longish
time (started with the advent of 0.12 I think), and I don't know how
many problems still remain (not too long ago he still had trouble
returning to character mode after X exited etc). He's sent me mail that
he edited in an xterm under linux though, so it's getting there...
Some of the results are already visible in the pre-0.96 release: the
mmap code and the io-port control needed for it. The socket code is
still not ready: the socket-emulation library on top of pty's had
problems, as the pty's aren't complete (they don't support hanging up
etc yet).
>The question is WHY NOT? Even if it is not working properly, couldn't we at
>least hear about the effort involved in porting X (setting modes, reading,
>writing to the screen memory, switching banks, etc.)
I assume obz is nearing completion and alpha-testing: he created a X11
channel on the original mailing list. Not that there has been any
activity yet :-)
I also assume one reason we haven't heard too much about graphics under
linux is simply because X11r5 (with the free X386 server) does all the
mode-setting things by itself, and doesn't need the kernel to do that
much. So porting X doesn't help other graphical systems that much: it's
mainly a question of getting the same kind of support as "normal"
386-unixes allow X, ie mmap/sockets etc.
Linus
From: d_smith@csd.brispoly.ac.uk (Dylan Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Offical windows
Date: 1 May 92 08:29:46 GMT
Reply-To: d_smith@csd.bristol-poly.ac.uk
Organization: Bristol Polytechnic (The Magic Roundabout)
Nntp-Posting-Host: eggs
In article < 1992Apr28.154621.29219@cs.brown.edu>, wcn@cs.brown.edu (Wen-Chun Ni) writes:
|> Please forgive my ignorance. How many bytes are need to get an X
|> server working? I've never seen any 386-based Unix, so I have no
|> knowledge about that. The Sparcstation with 16mb running X is
|> snappy, but 386? Or should we get a 486 with at least 8mb to run
|> an X? Any information is welcome.
I use two 386's running Interactive System V, one is 25MHz and the other is
33. The 33 is quite snappy (not as good as the SPARC-based Solbourne S4000's
I also use) and the 25 is a bit slow at updating, but is perfectly usable.
The 25MHz has also only got 8Mb, wheras the 33 has 16. The 25 seems to
do a hell of a lot of swapping, wheras the 16 does hardly any.
It's my theorey then, that X will be almost useless if you have less than
8Mb of memory, unless the code is very well optimised.
--
Email : JANET d_smith@brispoly.csd | Everywhere else d_smith@csd.brispoly.ac.uk
dylan@brispoly.hal | dylan@hal.brispoly.ac.uk
From: hlu@phys1.physics.wsu.edu (Hongjiu Lu)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Offical windows
Date: 1 May 92 18:23:09 GMT
Organization: Washington State University
In article < 1992May1.082946.24540@csd.brispoly.ac.uk>, d_smith@csd.brispoly.ac.uk
(Dylan Smith) writes:
|> In article < 1992Apr28.154621.29219@cs.brown.edu>, wcn@cs.brown.edu (Wen-Chun Ni)
writes:
|>
|> |> Please forgive my ignorance. How many bytes are need to get an X
|> |> server working? I've never seen any 386-based Unix, so I have no
|> |> knowledge about that. The Sparcstation with 16mb running X is
|> |> snappy, but 386? Or should we get a 486 with at least 8mb to run
|> |> an X? Any information is welcome.
|>
|> I use two 386's running Interactive System V, one is 25MHz and the other is
|> 33. The 33 is quite snappy (not as good as the SPARC-based Solbourne S4000's
|> I also use) and the 25 is a bit slow at updating, but is perfectly usable.
|> The 25MHz has also only got 8Mb, wheras the 33 has 16. The 25 seems to
|> do a hell of a lot of swapping, wheras the 16 does hardly any.
|>
|> It's my theorey then, that X will be almost useless if you have less than
|> 8Mb of memory, unless the code is very well optimised.
|>
|> --
|> Email : JANET d_smith@brispoly.csd | Everywhere else d_smith@csd.brispoly.ac.uk
|> dylan@brispoly.hal | dylan@hal.brispoly.ac.uk
I am running X11R4 with 386sx-16 MHz and 4MB RAM. It is very usable. I love
it. I can do coding and testing for my X11R4 code.
H.J.