Ultrix 4.2

[George Michaelson]

reha at cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Reha Elci) writes:

>I also do not agree with the guy from DEC who dismissed DPS as useless!
>Here is finally an extension that brings the obsolete bitmap & pixel based X
>architecture to modern day standards and he dismisses it as clunky & useless.
>What is wrong with you people??

DPS is sweet, but really really costly on memory to run. If you fire up
one instance of cda or dxpsview and play around, your X server grows 
very significantly.

Cheapskates like me who have acquired workstations on university discounts
and now try to use them to support multi-user applications, or tasks better
suited to DECsystems (which are (surprise surprise) not being discounted
nearly so heavily) find Xgrowth is a problem. I run 1 application semi-
continuously that has to be over 15Mb big. if X is getting upto 4Mb big,
and I'm swapping between the two, and the kernel steals 2Mb and I have
a coupla dozen windows/icons open I start to swap. DEC MIPS boxes are fine
but swapping kills anything. The box (3100) takes 24Mb and thats the limit.
I have already blown that away a couple of times (try running dbx over the
15Mb image and xdbx in front of that...)

But to return to context, If I have any complaint about Ultrix 4.2 it's
the need to mung standard X11 clients Imakefiles to get them to compile.
I bet more of us build stuff that needs -I/usr/include/mit than would
have suffered from DEC making the DECplications like dx* have to do
-I/usr/include/DEC-X11 to make cleanly.

I still don't have a finalized site.def and ultrix.def which fixes this.

anyone have one?

	-George 
-- 
                         George Michaelson
G.Michaelson at cc.uq.oz.au The Prentice Centre      | There's no  market for
                         University of Queensland | hippos in Philadelphia
Phone: +61 7 365 4079    QLD Australia 4072       |          -Bertold Brecht