On Fri, 20 Dec 1996, Jason Thorpe wrote:

>  > Hey, thanx !!! This server is:
>  > - a lot smaller tham my old one ( about 500kB !!! )
>  > - doesn't have the MIT-SHM extension :-(
>  > - doesn't crash when I start the XView clock
>  > - seems to operate a bit fasterand there seems to me some code that should
[4.4BSD X-server]
> It's smaller because it's linked against 4.4BSD libraries, which don't
> have YP code in them, etc.  It's mostly a library difference.
hmm, I personally don't need YP... ok, it has to be there...

> The MIT-SHM bit.. 4.4BSD had SYSV shared memory... don't know why that server
> doesn't use it... the comments in the file say it was for "HP-UX compatibility
> and X server (yech!)".  *shrug*
search me... it don't have PEX either ( that never really worked as far as
I see it ) 

> The reason for it not crashing... Well... heh, this is amusing, actually...
just try it... I could send you the binaries of my xview-port, the clock,
the cmdtool and olwmslave's halpwindow definitely crash the NetBSD
X-server but run nicely on the 4.4BSD one.
 
> You suggest that some source should be imported into the NetBSD/hp300
> X server...
No, I actually meant, that there was a tar file which looked like drivers
for topcat and hyperion graphics boards and HIL devices and I thought
about importing it into a 'stock' x-consortium R5 source tree.
 
> ...well, the amusing part is... it's the same source.  I.e. the sources
> used to build the 4.4BSD X server binary that works better are the _same_
> sources that were used to build the NetBSD/hp300 binary that occasionally
> loses.  (Well, a copy of them, anyhow...)
(grin) maybe some of the extensions are buggy ? there seems to be a driver
problem too, xmountans ( a cute littel program that drws fractal mountains
into the root window ) produces total garbage whin it tries to scroll the
whole window some pixels to the left. That happens as well when it works
in an own window with private colormap.

> When I looked at the X server problems over 2 years ago, the only
> difference I could really come up with was the compiler used to generate
> the executables.
and the compiled-in extensions... ( don't know what they really do but I
think I can live very well without PEX... )

>  > (to Jason: why not import this server into the hp300 X11 distribution ? )
> 
> Well, it's not a NetBSD binary... and, like you said, it lacks things
> like MIT-SHM.  The annoying bit is, it is probably impossible to reproduce
> that binary from sources anymore.
I'll try the bit with the R5 sources from the X consortium and report
further...
 
> I would really much rather invest my, and have others invest their, effort
> into doing a decent X11R6 server for NetBSD/hp300.  We're destined to
> lose if we try to maintain an ancient 4.4BSD binary.
I ust thought about giving the lads the chance to decide if they want a
big and 'true' NetBSD X server that has some nice extensions but crashes
occasionally or maybe they need a small but stable server that lacks some
extensions, well, I can live without the xview clock, but it's quite
annoying if you compile som program and then have to try if it crashes
your X server ( say: the whole machine... )
I didn't mean something like maintaining it, just a note like "look, lads,
if you have problems try this one" or so.

bye
Michael