🚀 go-pugleaf

> After all, if X, just because it is the least course of resistance,
> becomes the kitchen sink server, X will not survive the test of time.

I concur, however, does or should any software "survive the test of
time" in the sense that Shakespeare has survived the test of time?  The
technology is moving at a rapid pace (unlike human nature).  Will the
"X" of the future be X because it still does all of the same old stuff
in the same old way, or will it be called "X" simply because we choose
to call it thus?  The saw of the modern carpenter (sub-genus "framer" ;-)
bears very little resemblance to those used 200 years ago, but we still
call it a saw.  Has the saw survived the test of time?

I think that philosophical purity and classical elegance are valuable
assets to any endeavor, but we shouldn't let that cause us to lose
sight of making systems which are useful right now.

> The real time aspects of audio also make me think it would be painful
> to do audio as an X extension.

I think that while we're still experimenting with what want in an aural
interface, we should not be grafting those experiments into a
relatively stable standard.  Hence I strongly support their exclusion
from the X server.

However, once there is some standard expectations for computers and
aural interfaces, I would expect combining both visual and aural
aspects of interaction into one server to be an inevitable occurance.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Ellsworth      | ben@cv.hp.com                | INTERNET
Hewlett-Packard Company | {backbone}!hplabs!hp-pcd!ben | UUCP
1000 N.E. Circle        | (USA) (503) 750-4980         | FAX
Corvallis, OR 97330     | (USA) (503) 757-2000         | VOICE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                     All relevant disclaimers apply.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------