On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 05:51:17 -0800,
changeustyle wrote:

> i want to know that Minix 3 is GUI Based and is it better than window 3.1.

Minix 3 at this moment is console only, no gui, although I understand
there are people looking at porting X to Minix 3. Having a gui would be
nice but I would like to see a few more nic drivers and mouse driver to
allow copy/paste before that.

An abicus would be better than windows 3.1.

Doug

If you can't do it from a command line, it's not worth doing.

We have X Windows running in house already, but it needs symbolic links
to work properly, so we are working on that. When everything is ready,
it will go out for beta testing.

Nevertheless, we are definitely interested in a ***small*** windowing
system as an alternative.

Andy Tanenbaum

ast wrote:
> We have X Windows running in house already, but it needs symbolic links
> to work properly, so we are working on that. When everything is ready,
> it will go out for beta testing.
>
> Nevertheless, we are definitely interested in a ***small*** windowing
> system as an alternative.
>
> Andy Tanenbaum
>
Yo Andy, I was once (not recently, though) working on a windowing system
to kill X11 once and for all, while being lightweight. It's calld
'Opti-X'. (The 'X' is unrelated to X11 cause I have used the name since
my DOS days about 3 years ago (2002) -- I tried to make a GUI for DOS
and that was the original 'Opti-X'. At the time, I didn't even know that
Un*x or X11 existed at all, although I had heard of Linux a few times.)

Anyways, my project aims to also replace Y-windows (while keeping the
Y-windows functionality). Opti-X had several goals in mind:
* Network transparency
* Local communications via IPC (NOT a pipe, this is how Windows' GUI
works)
* Server-side widgets
* X11 compatability
* Server can be a 'midpoint' for X11 -- A server on a workstation can
also be a client by being an X11 server, and translating the X11 stuff
to a small Opti-X server (as a client) in native Opti-X protocol for
devices that have the X11 code out of the Opti-X server.

However, it never got anywhere or any real functionality as a GUI.

Anyone want to assist me get it on Minix 3?

I hope I'm not completely drawing this thread off-track, but I am
curious why there is such a huge hype around network centric graphic
systems? If that is what's wanted why not just keep X? Personally I
don't see value in running applications graphically over a network
connection between a server/client. If lightweight is really important
why dont we just ditch all that complexity? I think that a lot of
people want X, but they only want the local server/client anyway. And
for the crowd that decides they do want client/server network graphics
architecture but dont like the bloat of X...well most people develop an
alternative that is lightweight but immature. And as it matures it gets
closer to the very thing they were complaining about (X) so i guess my
question is...why bother? this isn't meant to sound negative, i'd just
like to hear a decent justification.

I think a more interesting endeavor would be hardware accelerated
graphics like what vista is planning...I'd rather see the time spent on
copying X's features and work on something truly new, rather then
copying a 20 year old window system protocol.

web_fella@hotmail.com wrote:
> copying X's features and work on something truly new, rather then
> copying a 20 year old window system protocol.

But why reinvent the wheel? X works, and it works very well, it simply
happens to be bloated. Also, there are tons of X applications out
there. Having a graphical server, X compatible, but small and fast
(maybe adding compression to the client/server network communication?)
would be excellent, in my opinion.

--
Saludos,
Ángel

I agree, why invent the wheel? That's what creating a "lightweight" X
implementation pretty much is. I also realize there are tons of X
applications out there, but there aren't many of them that are very
high quality either. Minix is small, and in a lot of ways takes a
drastic departure from linux in terms of underlying architecture. It's
also not as mature. Minix3 offers a great opportunity to ditch a lot of
legacy systems that are getting kind of long in the tooth. There are
basically 2 approaches that could be taken: follow minix in a catch-up
game, or do something that is novel or new. I suppose I question the
strategy behind it more then anything else. I just don't see the point
of dumping all the legacy systems back onto the to get something that
looks like linux but not as mature or featureful? Considering how
horrible the current state of affairs is for the linux desktop, why do
we want to start down a path of mimicking their failure?

--Mike

On 20 Dec 2005 19:34:32 -0800, web_fella@hotmail.com wrote:

>I hope I'm not completely drawing this thread off-track, but I am
>curious why there is such a huge hype around network centric graphic
>systems?
>....
>...Personally I don't see value in running applications graphically over a network
>connection between a server/client.

A typical day at my (previous) job: I am
developing code in my computer, at some
point I need to check code from two of my
colleague's - no problem, remote
login to their computers, open a nedit /
emacs / etc. windows in my machine and do
what I need to do.
After integrating our code, we need to test
it in the actual hardware. The target
systems are in the lab, on a network isolated
from the main corporate network. We can
access it only from a few workstations
that have multiple ethernet ports and
are connected to both nets. (And same times
more networks) Options: (a) walk to the lab.
(b) remote login to one of the lab machines,
and run the X-enabled emulator, debugger,
etc. with the displays in my desktop machine.

Repeat the above scenarios with a few variations,
for example: (a) the lab is in a different
building / state / country / continent.
(b) My colleagues are in a different state /
building / etc.
(c) The target systems are in a different
building / state, etc. or at a customer's
site.
(d) Today we got a heavy snowstorm and I'm
working from home.

> If that is what's wanted why not just keep X?

Let's just keep X. Except for embedded systems
with limited resources, were other options are
more appropriate.

Another problem with X is that the server
keeps a lot of status information and programs
can not continue running it the connection
with a server is lost. X running on a VNC
server fixes this. (As well as migrating the
display between machines.)

>If lightweight is really important
>why dont we just ditch all that complexity? I think that a lot of
>people want X, but they only want the local server/client anyway.

Wrong assumption for many others.

>for the crowd that decides they do want client/server network graphics
>architecture but dont like the bloat of X...well most people develop an
>alternative that is lightweight but immature.

Agreed - Immature and not widely available /
supported, etc. That's why I said let's keep X.

> And as it matures it gets
>closer to the very thing they were complaining about (X) so i guess my
>question is...why bother? this isn't meant to sound negative, i'd just
>like to hear a decent justification.

>I think a more interesting endeavor would be hardware accelerated
>graphics like what vista is planning...I'd rather see the time spent on
>copying X's features and work on something truly new, rather then
>copying a 20 year old window system protocol.

Is there any fundamental idea or concept in modern
computer and software systems that is not at least
20 years old?
Roberto Waltman

[ Please reply to the group, ]
[ return address is invalid. ]

>>If lightweight is really important
>>why dont we just ditch all that complexity? I think that a lot of
>>people want X, but they only want the local server/client anyway.
>
>Wrong assumption for many others.

2 things:
1) you are in the minority. Most people do not run x to execute remote
sessions, they run X because it's literally the only option they have
for running a windowing system on UNIX.
2)I'm not disagreeing by saying that there shouldn't be some way to run
applications remotely and be able to seperate the view. My point was
essentially with the protocol...the client/protocol for X is HORRIBLE!
>Repeat the above scenarios with a few variations,
>or example: (a) the lab is in a different
>building / state / country / continent.
>(b) My colleagues are in a different state /
>building / etc.
>(c) The target systems are in a different
>building / state, etc. or at a customer's
>site.
Yes, this is great in theory, except for the fact that running
client/server over one of these high latency links just doesnt work,
unless youve got an oc48 between your home and the office. Opening up a
simple emacs session takes forever.


>Is there any fundamental idea or concept in modern
>computer and software systems that is not at least
>20 years old?
You're right, age doesn't have anything to do with it.
I'm not picking on the concept or the idea, merely the implementation.
X is a pretty horrendous protocol that has never really delivered on
its promises. There are other windowing systems that have done a MUCH
better job, like openstep for example.

Granted these pages are a little biased against UNIX in general but
really read the examples that are provided to illustrate why X is a bad
fit.
http://www.art.net/~hopkins/Don/unix.../disaster.html
startling that although the bugs from 15 years ago have been fixed, the
core issues with X that are outlined in that document still remain

web_fella@hotmail.com wrote:
> You're right, age doesn't have anything to do with it.
> I'm not picking on the concept or the idea, merely the implementation.
> X is a pretty horrendous protocol that has never really delivered on
> its promises. There are other windowing systems that have done a MUCH
> better job, like openstep for example.
>
> Granted these pages are a little biased against UNIX in general but
> really read the examples that are provided to illustrate why X is a bad
> fit.
> http://www.art.net/~hopkins/Don/unix.../disaster.html
> startling that although the bugs from 15 years ago have been fixed, the
> core issues with X that are outlined in that document still remain
>

And I was about to link you to the X-Windows Disaster page... damnit!

web_fella@hotmail.com wrote:
> I agree, why invent the wheel? That's what creating a "lightweight" X
> implementation pretty much is. I also realize there are tons of X

I also like the idea of a thin, super-fast graphical environment,
nothing fancy, just something which allows me to run 12-15 xterms
simultaneously together with a browser.

> applications out there, but there aren't many of them that are very
> high quality either. Minix is small, and in a lot of ways takes a

Regardless of how good or bad they are, they are the ones we (not
really me, since I am really minimalistic, but most people) use, and
will be using in the future. Being able to run large (horrible)
applications (such as OpenOffice ---which I hate, of course, but which
many people around me use---) on a server and having it display on a
thin client running Minix would be simply wonderfull.

> drastic departure from linux in terms of underlying architecture. It's
> also not as mature. Minix3 offers a great opportunity to ditch a lot of
> legacy systems that are getting kind of long in the tooth. There are

I fully agree. I love recovering old hardware and doing great things
with it.

> basically 2 approaches that could be taken: follow minix in a catch-up
> game, or do something that is novel or new. I suppose I question the
> strategy behind it more then anything else. I just don't see the point
> of dumping all the legacy systems back onto the to get something that
> looks like linux but not as mature or featureful? Considering how
> horrible the current state of affairs is for the linux desktop, why do
> we want to start down a path of mimicking their failure?

Who's talking about Linux? Not me. What has X to do with Linux? Who
cares about the Linux Desktop environments? I, for one, do not. But
I would love to see something X compatible with X (but small and fast)
on top of Minix. :-)

--
Saludos,
Ángel