🚀 go-pugleaf

In <5hblk0$9jh$1@trsvr.tr.unisys.com>, benjamin.romer@unisys.com (Benjamin M. Romer) writes:
>In article <5gvbph$sp8$1@news.xmission.com>, hunterp@xmission.com says...
>>
>>In <858953572.987137@nntp-2.io.com>, timur@io.com (Timur Tabi) writes:
>[SNIP]
>>>Hmmm.... WPS on X?  Interesting idea.
>>
>>Why not. We already have a win95 look-a-like of fvwm. Pretty cheesy looking
>>though.
>
>I like this concept, but not from your perspective. Let me explain:
>
>First - I think Timur meant an implementation of WPS on X for OS/2. This
>would add some serious value to the OS (a REAL X-server!), solve a lot of
>the problems with the SIQ and PM in general, and generally give OS/2 a
>great deal more flexibility.
>
>It would be quite a bit of work, though, to make it backward-compatible.
>PM imposes some pretty specific ideas on application design that could be
>a real pain in the ass to port. VIO windows would have to be redone, 
>although this could be less of a problem than I think it is. Windows 
>support would be difficult as well, or IBM could license WABI from Sun
>and do a port. Or they could leave it as it is (see below).
>
>X itself is freely available from the XFree86 ports, or (more likely)
>IBM could roll its own X Servers.
>

IBM has X Windows on OS/2 if you bought the full TCP/IP v2.0 or v3.0 
package.  I am not sure if it includes a server though.


Rgds,

Chris


>For compatibility, a PM library would have to be written using Xlib. This
>library would be a DLL shared by all PM applications. To fix the SIQ, the
>library gives each PM application the impression (at least from its 
>message queue standpoint) that it is the only PM app running. In fact,
>though, the library has a queue for each application, and its own queue
>using the X server's messages. The library would then map messages from
>X to PM, and put them in the queue for the app. It would also map graphics
>calls to their X equivalents. The only changes necessary to other window
>classes would be if there was some kind of bug that make them incompatible
>with the new PMLib.
>
>This would also allow PM applications to display their output on a standard
>X terminal, which would be a real plus for remote access and administration.
>
>IBM would have to provide the SOM implementation for WPS, which would be
>a client of the PMLib at first but could be redone to use X more efficiently.
>
>You'd also need a window manager, probably with extensions for WPS. This
>shouldn't be too hard to do.
>
>In the best case, however, we would get a Display PostScript system with
>font smoothing, color-level control, and real-time resolution and color
>depth changes. Something that would make even NeXTStep look like dirt.
>
>I get wood thinking about it. ;) 
>
>But... it probably will never happen.
>Such is life.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Ben Romer
>


*** The Windows Guide to Impotence ***
Abort, Retry, Fail???
Abort, Retry, Fail???
Abort, Retry, Fail???
>>>crobato@kuentos.guam.net<<<