Slashdot Mirror
Linux Desktop Without X11
A writes "Rocklyte systems have announced the first version of their Athene Operating System. It is a desktop and embedded operating system built on the Linux kernel, but without the "aging X11". Instead, it uses the SciTech SNAP graphics system with which it is possible to completely re-theme the desktop to look like the famous AmigaOS GUI or another famous UI. For backwards compatibility, an X11 server is also available in the system. The system can run completely off the CD, without needing to be installed on the harddrive."
Looks a lot like DOS.
"If, therefore, any be unhappy, let him remember that he is unhappy by reason of himself alone."
~Epictetus
The system can run completely off the CD, without needing to be installed on the harddrive."
At least that's what the server seems to be running from.
X11 really is ancient.
Instead, it uses the SciTech SNAP graphics system with which it is possible to completely re-theme the desktop to look like the famous AmigaOS GUI or another famous UI.
Right. Because themes are the most important thing, ever. This isn't an media player, it's a GUI.
why is linux so beholden to X? yeah, i love it's network transparent features ( i use in my class every day), but, look at what apple did with essentially a kernel and subsystem. they could port aqua to linux, since it already compiled under gcc anyways. that might be a huge commercial ticket for linux. certainly there is nothing that says you can't run a proprietary windowing system on top of the kernel, is there? app compatibility would be a huge issue, but like apple's X11, it could run rootless, and almost be unnoticable (except for the widgets).
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
Hmm, I've been using an embedded linux with a NON X gui for at least 2 years now....
it's called picogui
Plus you dont have to buy it, and it's much smaller.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Competition in open source projects is mostly a good thing. This new GUI may make X11 developers improve to keep up. However, different projects like this also create lack of standards. This may require people to use two GUIs, with different applications running on each one. With Windows, every version retains legacy compatability for almost all applications written for a previous version. However, this becoming popular would make it required to run two GUIs to run all Linux applications. Rather than expecting developers to conform X11 emulation should be implemented.
Alternate graphics layers have been around for a long time. Some of them have significant advantages over X11.
So far the only one which has really gained prominence is the frame buffer device that most modern Linux distributions use when booting. There is even a port of QT to that, and it is sometimes used as the only graphics device in embedded platforms. It has the great advantage of being really lightweight, but it is probably even slower and much less featureful than X11.
Another one is the Y server, which was used in some PDA's until public outcry over lack of source compatibility forced the manufacturer to put in X11 instead (remember that, Slashdot?). Before that there was also svgalib. I don't think anyone cried over that going away.
The issue is support--there are tons of toolkits and applications available for X11, and the networking features are neat and useful once in a while (very often for some people, including myself). Others start with a base of pretty much nothing. That means that it is really hard for them to gain acceptance, even if they are superior from viewpoints such as being smaller, faster, and easier to program.
I personally think that we are going to be stuck with all the cruft and slowness of X11 for a very long time.
Thanks to the miracle of X10 security technology, I no longer have to worry about that. THANKS X10!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
With Windows, every version retains legacy compatability for almost all applications written for a previous version.
When Rob Short, the vice-president of Windows Core Technology, was asked, "How many applications will transfer over from [Windows] NT4 or 2000 [to Windows Server 2003]?" he answered: "I'm not sure what the exact number is for taking an NT4 application and running it -- it's in the high 60 percent. It's not 90... Most of the time, if the application is following the [security] rules then it will run. But I must admit the rules haven't been well publicised."
Full Windows backward compatibility is a myth.
Developers: We can use your help.
You seem to connect themes with simple bitmap changes, and the like. I agree that simply offering this functionality is less than important.
However, with 'true' theming, the internal function of the GUI (and OS) is loosely tied with the graphical layout and function of the GUI. What does this means? It means that a single system, properly configured, can handle many different interface styles. You could simultaneously offer transition interfaces to users from different GUI camps - Windows, MacOS, NeXT, etc.
This is an immensely important feature for this reason. While many see theming as eyecandy, properly implemented it can serve a very useful purpose; fit the GUI to the user, not the user to the GUI. It should also allow new interface styles to be prototyped - what better way to develop usability than to look at what people with the skillset to change the interface think works best?
AmigaOS , WinTel, and More Screenshots, all thanks to The Internet Archive
Most people that dislike X don't understand it.
My favorite complaint is that it's bloated or eats too much memory. It's bogus -- X uses relatively little memory itself, but pixmaps are stored in X instead of in apps. So Linux GUI apps tend to use less memory than they would with a Windows-like environment, but X's memory usage go up.
I actually sat down and modified some code to query X how much memory is being used by each program in pixmap memory. This is memory that would have to be used under Windows. Little things -- gkrellm, a simple dock program that I have running, caches about 2.7MB of pixmaps in X all by itself. This doesn't show up as gkrellm memory usage in top, but it *is* being consumed by gkrellm.
X11 allows network transparency, 3d support, hardware scaling of video, support for more font formats than Windows does, zooming in and out. When combined with a window manager, the X11 architecture is incredibly powerful and flexible.
I wish people would stop complaining about and learn to use X's features.
May we never see th
Sure, choice is good, but why not make it easy on yourself and choose "vi" - the only correct choice.
Personally, I love X,
Otherwise known as the Stockholm syndrome.
X11 isn't as Bad as everything thinks.
The way I see X being slow is that widgets need to be on server-side instead of client-side. Right now the client Draws everything useing X primitives, sending the raw data (pixmaps, whatnot) to the server over the network. Now if the server had the widgets on its side the client would just have to tell the server the type, size, position of the widget, Instead of sending a pixmap.
This would help things such as less bandwidth, less cpu overhead for eash client.
Maybe this could even be implimented in a X-
extentsion
Maybe I am just showing my ignorance here, But an idea is an idea.
Yeah, this was sort of a revalation to me recently. I just got a new machine at work. Of course it came with Windows (XP Pro) installed on it so I played with it for a few days before blowing it away and putting RedHat 9 on it. I was sort of hesitant to do so because windows in XP seemed to pop up fast and the whole system seemed very responsive (not that I was doing anything heavy duty.) Another plus is that font rendering is actually better than Windows, and about equal with Macs. That's really nice.
Anyway, now that I've got RH installed (w/XFree 4.3.x) I am very happy to say that X seems just as responsive as Windows, even when I am doing something heavy duty, and I'm using KDE as well. This was the first time in about five years I've used any kind of Windows, it was a nice validation of X as far as I am concerned.
XFree, at least without propriatary drivers, might not be great for games, but it makes my development life a lot more joyful than other non-networked windowing environments would, and that includes the kludgy windows terminal services crapola.
People bad-mouth X because their PC happens not to use its power. They complain about its "bloat", because they see it taking 10MB of their 256-MB machine's precious RAM, most of which is idle. They complain about it being "slow", which tells me that they have nothing better to do than play video games.
X is many times better than anything else in the marketplace; X is many years ahead of anything that Microsoft offers; it may be old, but so what? The Internet is old. Is that a reason to ditch the internet?
There is value in having alternatives. For mobile phones, the power of X is not needed and something lighter might be appropriate. But to all those who persist in bad-mouthing X, I say: look beyond what 's good enough for the PC in your bedroom right now. Find out what X is really about. It's still leading-edge and is one of the advantages Linux has over its competitors. Does it need improvement? Of course, like pretty much everything that's used. But it's the best base we've got for building on. Discarding it and going back to a Microsoft-like GUI would be a giant leap backwards.
I'm so happy to hear someone finally ditched the X windows. Now maybe we can get some decent applications without needing to code the whole UI experience every time.
This may be the one.
Bah, X is an established standard that works well.
So few people truely understand what makes X tick is why so many people bash it..
X is wonderful, its the crap that runs on top X that tends to suck and give X a bad name.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Looks like someone wants to use fvwm and the variety of themes with different looks and actions. Only window manager I've seen that can do windows, mac os (who would want that? *duck*) and CDE.
- X is not slow
- Some X video drivers are slow.
- The slowdown caused by Network transparency is negligible.
- KDE and GNOME are piggishly slow. I use both because I'm willing to sacrifice speed for functionality.
Facts about X usability:- Configuration is difficult, even for experienced users.
- Cut-and-paste style should be configurable.
What X needs:- A way to send less data over the wire for toolkits such as QT / GTK+.
- Easier configuration and setup.
- Pluggable cut-and-paste architecture that can be more easily used by the other toolkits.
- Better video drivers*.
* I know