home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- From: guy@sun.com (Guy Harris)
- Date: Sat, 11 Oct 86 03:05:09 PDT
-
- > (1) True windows, such as a 5620, Sun, UNIX PC, etc. Each window
- > acts like a terminal. This is unquestionably the best, but it
- > requires special hardware, and is an area that needs to be
- > standardized.
-
- At some point, perhaps. It's unclear whether now is the time to do so. I
- don't think window systems have been around long enough that people can say
- "this is how to do a window system". I don't think window systems have
- settled down enough to start standardizing yet. (How many people would have
- thought of using PostScript as a rendering language for a window system, and
- extending it to handle input events as well and act as an extension
- language, before James Gosling first talked about his work? Would people
- have missed that entirely when developing a standard?)
-
- Also, what would the standard specify? A C-language binding to routines to
- manipulate the screen? A set of low-level operations to render images
- within a window, a high-level user interface toolkit, something in between,
- all of the above, or none of the above?
-
- > (3) Berkeley job control. Henry may think this is ugly, but from a user's
- > point of view, if you can't have a real bitmapped display, this is the
- > next best thing. I strongly prefer it to (2).
-
- For what it's worth, I will point out that even though I have access to (1),
- I still use (3). I haven't analyzed my use of it enough to really say why.
- Some of it may be that it takes a while to pop up a new shell window in my
- environment (time to start the window process that provides the simulated
- terminal and time to start up the Korn shell). Some of it may be that the
- EMACS key bindings I have let me suspend EMACS but not easily fork off a new
- shell. Some of it may be that it is occasionally convenient to move a job
- into the background when you discover it'll take a while to complete, or
- move a backgrounded job into the foreground to abort it.
-
- > I do think that certain things should be standardized:
-
- > (a) termio, or at least the subset that's commonly used.
-
- The current proposal before 1003.1 does this; it fixes some botches in
- "termio" as it exists (MIN and TIME are not overloaded with EOF and EOL, for
- instance) and restores a couple of capabilities deleted when the System III
- terminal driver first appeared.
-
- > (b) an ioctl to find out the current window size, in chars and pixels.
-
- The current proposal has this, but does not give the window size in pixels.
- The "termio" interface is really not a good portable interface for doing
- graphics, since most terminals can't do graphics. As such, it's not clear
- why the window size in pixels should be provided by this interface. A
- program that really cares how big the window is in pixels should probably
- use the local window system primitives for this, since it has to use the
- window system's rendering primitives to draw things anyway.
-
- Volume-Number: Volume 7, Number 51
-
-