Home
| Calendar
| Mail Lists
| List Archives
| Desktop SIG
| Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU |
On 11/05/2010 07:26 PM, Mark J Dulcey wrote: > I understand that argument (not quoted). But I also understand the way = > that most people think of clients and servers. A server is a distant=20 > thing that does something for you, and a client is something that you=20 > operate to get the server to do something. But in X terminology you sit= =20 > in front of a server and connect to a client. The X client runs on a=20 > server computer, and the X server runs on a client (i.e., desktop)=20 > computer. Backwards. > =20 It is certainly NOT backwards. Possibly from the way some people think. In a single Unix or Linux system you have a number of servers running, including X. The basic issue is that the X process is a server by all definition. It's just that some people think of servers as a piece of hardware sitting in some computer room. So, if a Windows user in my office wants to run our company's products, it must run an X server (exceed), then pring up a putty window on once of our Linux or Unix servers and run the program. So, in this case the X client runs on a server. The X terminology is perfectly correct from a software engineering standpoint. In this example, exceed is simply a server process on the Windows machine. The issue is not that the terminorlogy is right or wrong, but that the average Windows user's perception is wron= g. --=20 Jerry Feldman <gaf-mNDKBlG2WHs at public.gmane.org> Boston Linux and Unix PGP key id: 537C5846 PGP Key fingerprint: 3D1B 8377 A3C0 A5F2 ECBB CA3B 4607 4319 537C 5846
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |