Subject: Re: X server as a Unix system process
To: Matthias Scheler <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Jason Thorpe <email@example.com>
Date: 07/14/1997 16:01:21
On 14 Jul 1997 23:59:31 +0200
firstname.lastname@example.org (Matthias Scheler) wrote:
> Windows NT 3.51 did the graphics stuff in a process, 4.0 does in the kernel.
> As a result of this 4.0 can be *easily* crashed by a program doing faulty
> graphic operations.
Heh... no kidding... How often does my X11R6 Xsun crash? Oh, often,
especially if I'm using later versions of Netscape :-)
I'm told that the reason NT moved graphics from being a "process" (actually,
something very similar to a Mach server) to the "micro"-kernel was for
performance.. However, I don't see _any_ performance problems with
X on my NetBSD systems, with the one exception of NetBSD/hp300's R5 server,
which is slow because of a crappy ddx layer. Even X under NetBSD/sun3
is reasonable, and XFree86 is nothing shy of _amazing_ on the 200MHz PPro
in my office.
Jason R. Thorpe email@example.com
NASA Ames Research Center Home: 408.866.1912
NAS: M/S 258-6 Work: 415.604.0935
Moffett Field, CA 94035 Pager: 415.428.6939