From: mark@cyantic.com (Mark T. Dornfeld)
Subject: Re: A CPU on Every Desk?
Organization: CYANTIC Systems
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 16:30:39 GMT

In article <SCOTT.93Jan22132602@nic.gac.edu> scott@nic.gac.edu (Scott Hess) writes:
>In article <1jp3mmINNnpo@cs.widener.edu>
>	jefferis@manas.engr.widener.edu (Raymond P Jefferis) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan21.160050.4997@tse.uucp>
>>	markt@tse.uucp (Mark Turner) asks:
>>> Is it possible to hang X terminals off a NeXT server and use the native  
>>> NeXT desktop from the terminals?
>>> Comments .... ?

This may be trite, but "A CPU on Every Desk", when taken literally, is a given,
whether the architecture distributes the graphics protocol (X), the
database processing (Client-Server), or the application processing
(distributed 3D rendering).  The question revolves around the design of the
OS and its services.

Having a fully-configured workstation at every user location has always
seemed extremely wasteful of resources, both in up-front costs and in support
and maintenance. The dumber the device, the easier it is to maintain.

From the perspective of managing data, distributed data models are beginning
to cause serious anxiety in corporations because much data is no longer
secure or readily archived.

Spreading out applications on end user work stations leads to
administration/licensing problems and more difficulty in supporting the
tasks of the user.

In general, these are problems faced by entities with large growing
networks and the poor blokes who have bought into PC networks as a
corporate strategy will be the first to feel the bite.

The issue goes beyond the distribution of the display processing. Data
storage requirements on a network are growing at very high rates so that
disk arrays can outgrow the capabilities of the OS.

The major tasks of the OS, (persistant data management, application
processing, display processing) could all be split into separate subsystems
that communicate across a "network".  This network could be standard
ethernet for some tasks, specialized buses such as Sun's Mbus, or high
speed DMA-like buses for data access as in Plan 9.

Robust protocols are required.  Each subsystem can run the core OS,
with specialized extensions for its primary task while communicating with
the other subsystems in a standard way such as UNIX has used from the
beginning with device files.

The issue is thorny and real.  X terminals are very attractive from one
point of view, but the drawbacks are just as compelling.  Standardizing on
X itself may be right for an organization to preserve software investments
since X will run on just about any CPU configuration that is found at a
user's work station.

I'd like to see a powerful, networked NeXTstep windowing system.  It would
allow many sites to buy basic NeXT hardware and put it to good use.  These
machines could even be diskless as long as they shipped with enough RAM.

Since this is the advocacy newsgroup, then put one vote in the yes column
for NeXT to plan for this in future releases.
-- 

Mark T. Dornfeld                              Voice: (416) 234-9048
CYANTIC Systems                               Facsimile: (416) 234-0477
101 Subway Crescent Suite 2103                Email: mark@cyantic.com
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy