🚀 go-pugleaf

Benjamin Romer <benjamin.romer@unisys.com> wrote in article
<5hmt5d$r9u$2@trsvr.tr.unisys.com>...
> In article <333D1325.6E47@NOSPAM.ibm.net>, duboisp@NOSPAM.ibm.net says...
> >
> >crobato@kuentos.guam.net wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> >I hope *I* didn't get confused ;-)
> >
> >-- 
> >Pieter Dubois
> >
> 
> Not at all, you're absolutely right. But I think that Chris must have
> missed my point.
> 
> I wasn't asking for a PM-based X Server, what I want is an OS/2 based
> system running X Windows as its primary UI, e.g. replace PM with X. This 
> would add a great deal of value to the system as a whole, increase 
> interoperability, solve a number of problems like the SIQ, and give OS/2
a
> real industry-standard GUI to throw around.

It would also introduce a number of problems, mainly a paradigm shift
required by developers to switch to an X-centric (pardon the pun) model.  I
would guess that more developers would switch to windows (since windows and
OS/2 have very similar event models) than learn a new windowing scheme.  Of
course this is opinion.

Programmers are fickle that way, note that some won't switch editors and
won't develop on a platform unless there's a decent vi clone ;)

> People would probably want a Motif look to the system, but personally I
hate
> motif and I think it's irritating that Unix would try to standardize a
widget
> set that is basically a copy of Windoze 3.1's controls.
> 
> Even better would be a Display PostScript system similar to NeXT or
Solaris
> NeWS, which gives us perfect WYSIWYG, as well as font-smoothing. Throw in
> dynamic colorlevel and resolution switching, and you've got yourself one
> powerful high-end graphics system.
> 
> I'd gladly pay double or more for a decent OS/2 GUI system. PM seems like
> it's become old and more sluggish every single time I use it. 

No comment... ;)