In article <1991Feb18.170310.2344 at gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>,
lamoran at gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (L.A. Moran) writes:
>>> Brian R. Smith writes,
>> "Yes, there are platforms that do not (or cannot) support X. I don't
> mean to sound snobbish, but I think they'll fall by the wayside.
> (Even if you get a Mac or PC X server, you still can't run a program
> on the Mac/PC and display on another X server - it's only a one-way
> support.) And, if they are replaced by Unix machines, many
> departments are going to HAVE to hire an experienced system
> administrator to care for and feed them. Even if workstation
> manufacturers manage to put a workable system administration layer
> over Unix (as NeXT is trying to do), the underlying software still
> must be understood."
>> This opinion seems to be shared by Chris Dow who is also a fan of X-windows
> and UNIX.
>>> Perhaps Brian Smith or Chris Dow could explain what kind of applications they
> are referring to when they make such claims. Do they think that a MAJORITY
> of molecular biologists should purchase expensive workstations that run
> UNIX and X-windows? If so, why?
Obviously, I haven't made myself clear on this issue. I beleive
that unix is an extrememly powerful system which has the potential to
make more sophisticated, and, ultimately, more useful programs available
to the user. At this point, however, I find that unix is far to difficult
to manage, and therefore, IntelliGenetics has a commitment to writing
software for _all_ major platforms, as evidenced by our poster at
_Genome Sequencing II_.
Also, please note that a SparcStation IPC costs _much_ less than
an equivalently configured Mac II fx, so I don't think one can call unix
workstations expensive, they are just a top-of-the-line-type computer.
>> -Larry Moran
> Dept. of Biochemistry
Chris Dow IntelliGenetics
Software Engineer 700 East El Camino Real
icbmnet: 37 22' 39" N, 122 3' 32" W Mountain View, Ca. 94040
dow at presto.ig.com (415) 962-7320
