Re: [TCLUG:12935] Remote X (client/server rant)

[Philip C Mendelsohn <mend0070@tc.umn.edu>]

On Thu, 27 Jan 2000, Dave Sherohman wrote:

> Eric M. Hopper said:
> > 	The whole "Me Server!  Me big box in back room with good IO
> > bandwidth!" and "Me Client!  Me tiny box on person's desk." view of
> > client/server is what happened when mainframe people descended on the
> > UNIX and PC world and tried to make sense of the technology from within
> > their worldview.  IMHO, this mindset leads to a lot of innefficiency and
> > muddled thinking.
> 
> My view of the terms is that the client initiates action and the server
> responds.

Um, I'm geezing enough to slightly resent the "mainframe" people
comment.  UNIX descended from "mainframes" in the first place -- at least
from the minicomputer users viewpoint... (maybe I just resent geezing!)

To offer a suggestion, it seems to me that if you view the server as the
machine that *has* the resources and the client as the one that remotely
uses them, then all consistency is maintained, and that's exactly what
happens in both the X case, and the other cases.  The print server is
connected to the printer.  The X server is connected to the
display.  etc...  It's just that graphics are such a bandwidth hog that it
makes more sense to give everyone their own server.

My $.02.

Phil M.

---
Life is complex:
It has real and imaginary components.
                     --Unknown