Slashdot Mirror
X.org Making Fast Progress
prisonernumber7 writes "X.org is showing a lot of progress! The combination of the XFixes extension, Damage extension, Composite extension and XEvIE (X Event Interception Extension)
present in X11R6.8 present user interface designers with a wide range of
here-to-fore difficult to achieve possibilities. What does this mean for the enduser? That's window shadows and window shadows within windows as well as true translucency for the OSS community. Good samples of Gnome and KDE desktops with drop shadows, and so on can be found here, here,
here,
here,
here,
translucency here, here and here,
and its use on handhelds running Linux."
X.Org is proof of Open Source advantages. XFree86 was a failing project, floundering under incompetent leadership. Under normal, closed source projects, this would spell doom for the software.
However, because it is open source, the project could be forked under new, competent leadership. And also, because of its licensing terms, people could switch to that fork without any negative repercussions.
Look at the progress X.Org has made in such a short period of time! How can anyone say that Open Source software is not superior?
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
Pics are looking good (amazing what a subtle difference can makes in terms of feel) but I have to say what still stands out in all those pics--bad fonts!
I really wish the default font situation would be better in the world of X and nix/bsd distros. Switching back and forth between Macs and PC's (windows), it's amazing how much better the mac fonts look and feel than windows. Likewise, Windows looks as much again better than the typical gnome/kde setup I have seen.
But is the cycle-tradeoff worth it? How will this affect slower environments like remote sessions? If the effect isn't too great, I say awesome. But if it is, I can think of a certain OS's UI that will require hardware acceleration.
I have heard this for so many years it is making me sick. I had a nice discussion with some guys from AMD and DELL at LinuxWorld expo in 2003 about this. They asked me why I would want to work on developing a Windows clone like ReactOS and somehow the discussion turned to "When will we have Linux on the Desktop". That was August 2003 and not much has changed. I think it will happen dont get me wrong but X.org alone is not the answer. Application and driver support still needs needs a lot of work.
Free Unix? Free Windows. http://www.reactos.com
Objects seen at a distance have less contrast than objects close up. It would be a useful feature of windows if they lost contrast as they receeded to the desktop.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
You make good points, but if there is one thing I've learned observing which software gets adopted and which does not, its that polish matters.
As the Linux desktop experience matures, acceptance will eventually hinge on its polish - OS X really has that aspect nailed down, and its not a bad goal to pursue. Sure, there are other issues that need to be addressed, and of course power-users will turn it off, but for folks like me that spend a lot of time in IDLE or Kate writing python code, I can spare the CPU cycles on my Athlon 64 3000+ for transparency. And hey, I like the look. =)
This is a good thing, and I don't think it materially adds "bloat" though I'm not knowledgable enough of the code to say that with certainty.
Every one of those shots are blatant rip offs of Apple. My god when will OSS developers grow a pair and go out on a limb to try something new?
Sure. From the User perspective, looking at screenshots, it probably looks that way.
You're giving Apple too much credit. The news here is not 'Oooh.. now we can look more like OS X', the news here is 'Now we have proper support for the things OS X supports'.
There is a difference here, because what 'the things OS X supports' are, by which I mean the 2D rendering API, is not a thing developed by Apple alone. Firstly, Apple's Quartz uses the PDF rendering model, which was created by Adobe, and PDF was in turn based on PostScript.
That this is a good way to do 2D graphics is a no-brainer. Postscript was invented in the early 80's. The Mac later supported it's own kind of device-independent images (QuickDraw, and PICT files). Windows had Metafiles, and GEM (if anyone here used the DOS or Atari version) had it too.
Given the success of Postscript and PDF, it's pretty natural to support the things they do. But Adobe (creators of PS and PDF), shouldn't get all credit either. They just implemented stuff developed by others, like Porter/Duff compositing.
(Another early 80's innovation)
So basically, none of this stuff is actually new. It has simply come of age. Apple has been in the forefront, and that is tribute to them. But if you think that this is all Apple's ideas.. You are wrong.
But tahts just me coming from the administration viewpoint.. I think things should just work, not so 'pretty' consitancy is more important to people in the business world.....
Same goes for other esoteric eye candy like 'shadows'...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Under normal, closed source projects, this would spell doom for the software.
And their work would probably be lost, and any new project that wanted continue their type of work would have to write everything all over again just to reach the existing level of functionality - which is a waste of time and effort. Instead, the pre-existing project is forked. Open from closed source is an innovation in distribution equivalent to modular/OOP from procedural in development in allowing and encouraging reusability. Reusability then facilitates easier extension - like the sort of improvements we're seeing with X.org.
Am I really seeing a bunch of people getting excited over translucencies and shadows?
(Has Windows really had Translucencies and shadows since 1999?)
No, we're excited that there is a version of X-window that is progressing.
These latest enhancements aren't super exciting, but X.org has had a lot of enhancements added since it split off from XFree86 a short 9 months ago, and there are many more enhancements coming in the next few months.
I think that all major distros had adopted X.org over XFree86.
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
I think the otherwise idle video card does most of the work anyways (at least it probably will in the future if not).
The reason eye candy is necessary is because the most impressive thing you can do to show off your Mac is to play a movie in Quicktime, minimize it, then watch as the video is still playing in the icon. Blatant eye candy sells computers and will definitely sell something that's already free.
Needs work boys, needs lots of work. I had high hopes for X.org but they are basically shattered now after seeing those OSX rip off screenshots.
You're bitching at the wrong project. It is the window manager and desktop environment devs who most directly determine the look and feel of what you see on the screen. X.Org writes the bits that expose the functionality of video hardware to application developers and various layers of the OS.
All those screenshots are meant to do is advertise the availability of certain effects and capabilities that up till now could only be achieved with dubious hacks.
As what desktops look like, they can look like anything. Out of the box, they can look like Windows, OS X, or other things entirely. Everybody has the basic elements of windows, widgets, icons, and some sort of pager to work with. As it happens, my desktop doesn't particularly resemble either MacOS or Windows. Get off it already.
Given statements like "10 years behind" coupled with general ignorance and I have to come to the conclusion that your troll-fu is extremely lacking. The low userid only makes it worse. It implies you've been around long enough to know better.
Every one of those shots are blatant rip offs of Apple.
Do you not see the irony in your statement? You tell OSS developers to try something new and yet it was Apple who have been using a BSD/Mach backend ever since OSX was first released. That is OSS code which is at the heart of OSX. Apple who is totally copying BSD/Unix. I'm not condemning Apple for this of course, there is no reason to reinvent the wheel.
Oh, and don't forget about Safari. Safari wouldn't exist in its current state if it weren't for OSS developers (KHTML).
So basically OSS developers have never done anything original... Except write the heart of the OSX OS runs and write the underlying code for Safari.
Just about everything is a derivation of something else. Rare is the truly original idea. "New" ideas are hard to come by, get used to it.
I can think of some times it would be really handy, not that it solves any of my problems that can't be solved another way.
For instance: say you are monitoring commands you are running on four different machines in four terminal windows that will take a while, and as a sanity check, you also have xosview running behind the terminal windows corresponding to the machine the terminal is on, and showing through enough to be useful but not enough to totally obscure your commands window. Now you get to use more screen real-estate for the commands (fewer ugly line-wraps, more history on the screen) and you can make sure you are really loading up the CPU by way of the nifty load monitoring tool.
OK it's a stretch but I'd still do it.
You're looking at Gnome, a desktop environment that runs on top of an X server.
This news just means that x.org now has more capabilities that desktops can take advantage of.
As far as your comment about Linux being behind the times, I'd agree that Linux is playing 'catch up,' but I don't think that's a bad thing, just a necessary step.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
You are saying that Linux isn't fit for the desktop which is why you are developing another OS. I hate to say it but your current os is way behind where linux was 3 years ago as is falling more and more behind each month.
Hell you do not even have a fully working VGA driver yet.
ReactOS status,
Status
Console Applications ReactOS supports a limited range of console (text based) applications, and support for more is increasing as we expand our console libraries. Notable examples of supported console software is GCC (which means that ReactOS can be compiled on ReactOS) and the GNU Midnight Commander (text-based file manager).
GUI Applications The Graphics Device Interface (GDI) and User32 is not yet complete. The VGA driver that comes with ReactOS also has some way to go, although the standard Microsoft VGA driver can be loaded. Test applications such as WinHello and WineMine demonstrate current capability.
Driver Support At the moment, work to support 3rd party drivers (Microsoft Windows compatible) is restricted. The focus is more on only basic drivers that are written in conjunction with the various kernel facilities.
Other Subsystems The JOS project has agreed to use the ReactOS kernel to develop a Java subsystem, to help bring their goal of a Java based operating system to realization.
Although we approached several groups that wish to implement an Open Source OS/2 operating system, none of them wanted to use ReactOS as a kernel. There is, however, at least one person who has joined the project that is interested in developing an OS/2 subsystem for ReactOS.
Although there is interest in a DOS subsystem, we have not yet moved to get interested people working on such a system.
Exactly. Just like in the automobile world, polish matters, and can often make or break a deal. A lot of cars have "unneccesary bloat" (weight) which affects performance. But things like sound insulation, vibration reduction measures, and bells and whistles add to the overall "feel" of the car. Many manufacturers have admitted to paying particular attention to the sound made when closing the car door. They deliberately fine-tune the acoustics so that closing the door makes a nice, reassuring "thud", and deliberately fine-tune the springs and hinges on the door to make it feel "heavy" and "solid", when in fact, they have not actually changed the door structure itself. Look and feel plays an important role (consciously or subconsciously) in people's buying decisions.
You're kinda missing the point. The essential technology in Composite is the ability to rediriect window hierarchies arbitrary targets. The composition manager can then do with these windows whatever it want's, without affecting the underlying technology. This is quite a step forward from what Apple has, where the composition mechanism is tied with the composition policy.
The current xcompmgr program is just a demo --- who cares what the drop-shadows look like? It can and will be replaced as window managers subsume the composite manager functionality.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
X has been around longer than Windows. And it JUST NOW has a feature that has been around for years on Windows. Why is it that OSS weenies jump up and down when a tiny feature like this finally arrives for X, when non-OSS has had this for years, and act like OSS just pulled a rabbit out of its hat?
Idiot. XFree86 has been a weak link in the chain of wonderful OSS for years, and for years we (as in the community) have been trying to get XFree86 to pick up the pace, clean up their act, and get to work. But no, XFree86 decided to linger in political pissing wars instead of actually building. It has been stagnant for a long time, and as we've celebrated all the wonderful things OSS brings us, we've all been accepting and acknowledging what XFree86 represented: a complete and utter failure that was independent of the development model. A project both unmanaged and micromanaged to the point where nothing could be done with it but barely keep pace with video cards (and even then not always managing that).
The win here is that XFree86 finally made a decision that made it necessary for the very people distributing it to stop doing so, and for a rival project to fork and fix all the mistakes.
So, yeah, you could focus only on the fact that X.org has new features that supposedly have been had for years in other parts of the industry and talk about how OSS sucks because of that. In the process you will be ignoring all the other wonderful things OSS has that proprietary software doesn't, and never will.
And you'll be ignoring the fact that the very development at which you scoff represents one of the biggest strong points of the OSS movement, and one of the strongest arguments RMS ever makes about Free Software.
So you can be ignorant, and there's still plenty of room for you.
Like what I said? You might like my music
No, arrogant developers who think a prety icon is good GUI has been the weak link in the chain of wonderfull OSS for years (if by OSS you mean a usable desktop Linux).
You could make Linux a Windows killer to day WITH the current XFree86 just by duplicating the Mac OS X folder structure and usability.
I've never understood this massive desire to try and copy Windows on the Linux desktop. Windows is not a *Nix OS. You're trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole.
Copy Apple for crying out loud. They've ALREADY made an incredibly usable GUI slapped on top of a *nix operating system.
OS X uses an openGL rendering engine, but you can reproduce 99% of the GUI functionality using XFree86 as it stands now and still be 3 years ahead of Windows.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
You're a controlling freak, then.
Eye-candy that has no effect on the OS (I'm not saying let the users go out and install Stardock or whatever utility of the month) has no effect on administration, and as a result should be allowed.
Case in point - desktop backgrounds. There is no reason not to let users set their own, and many reasons to let them do so, like the fact that if you let them do the things they want that don't affect things, they're more likely to listen to you when you say "You must use Firefox for security reasons."
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
OS X uses an openGL rendering engine, but you can reproduce 99% of the GUI functionality using XFree86 as it stands now and still be 3 years ahead of Windows.
Yeah, you could do that, if you wanted. The only problem is that then the desktop would be a third as responsive as it is now. There's a reason OS X uses an openGL rendering engine rather than dumping all that load on the CPU. "Arrogant" OSS developers are well familiar with that reason, are you?
Like what I said? You might like my music
Primarily because with Apple, its user base is mostly designers and the like, who put a great deal of value on how the system looks and less on its technical merits.
Lately, with Linux's growing popularity, we've had a lot of converts that don't know how to use the system without GNOME or KDE, and they think much more like Windows and Mac users do. They are always pushing for more of these sorts of "eye candy" features. Not that we don't have more experienced users who appreciate it too or anything.
But there are still a large number of Linux enthusiasts that got on board back when Linux wasn't pretty, and they didn't care then and they don't care now. Most of them are probably neutral when it comes to the addition of these sorts of eye-candy features, but some of them remember using Linux on a P90 and getting just as much work done then as they do now, and wonder what the point of all the additional bloat is.
I personally think most of these people are hysterical raisins, if only because it is still relatively easy to run Linux on a P90 if you're willing to be picky about what you install.
But, I'm glad they're around, because they keep us honest. The anti-bloat folks make a fuss when devs go overboard; they ensure that we can continue to run Linux on old hardware, which is important -- even if it means forgoing the latest GNOME/KDE thing and running a lite window manager instead (I use PWM, for example).
The simple fact of the matter is that *no-one* is innovating. No, not even Longhorn is innovative in the slightest. We're at a period in the computing industry where we're just rehashing ideas from the 1980's. There is no point in getting self-righteous over who rehashed a 20-year-old idea first.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Ok, accuser. List every innovative thing you've done and released under an open source license.
It's either put up or shut up, and real quick. Your criticism is hardly constructive, and while I'm willing to grant any random user the right to constructive criticism, I'm not willing to grant it to flaming criticism. So now you have to prove your credentials or shut the fuck up.
So let's have it. What have you done?
Like what I said? You might like my music
It's great to see X progressing in it's new home.
Now is the time to get the esthetics worked out before things get entrenched. The screenshots of the drop shadows show a shadow around all of the edges of the windows. This looks really funny since this implies that the light source is directly over the center of each window. Why is there a shadow on the top? If we're going to have a rendered-style look we should choose a decent place for the light so we can have some consistency.
I vote for the light source to be at offscreen at the top left.
Sheesh, there have been shadowed cursors in X for a few years now, and putting shadows on static regions like menus is old hat...
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Freetype is an excellent font-renderer. You need a goot set of fonts. The only decent free ones are the Bitstream Vera set --- if you can afford it, I recommend springing for some quality Adobe or Monotype fonts. Of course, you can always just use Ariel and Tahoma from your XP install!
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Quite frankly, what I *need* to do my job includes things like admin rights on my PC. What a secretary *needs* to do her job doesn't, and she shouldn't get them, but neither should admin have the right to tell her "You can't change your desktop background. You can't turn drop shadows on or off. You can't change your screen font. You can't make a window translucent" or any of the other things that fall under 'eye candy'. If leaving something unlocked (and again, I'm not saying let them install Weatherbug and crap like that out the wazoo) will not *negatively* affect the computer's stability, then it should by default be allowed. Allowing your users freedom should always be preferable to not doing so, unless there is a good reason not to. You may think your users don't dislike you for locking their machines down, but in my experience, you're wrong.
Installing programs unchecked? Not usually a necessary freedom.
Modifying inherent eye candy properties? Not a necessary freedom, but one unlikely to affect the stability of a machine, and as such a freedom that should be allowed.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
Well, copying an OS with 90% marketshare kind of makes more sense than copying one with 3% of the same.
OSX most definitely has hardware accelerated compositing - it's a terrific example of the GUI backend done right. It's also not available for anything but Apple hardware.
Windows does not have hardware accelerated compositing. Even it's alpha-channel support is quite flakey - have you ever seen a program with a partially transparent window? With some applications, you can set an entire window transparent, but this quite often leads to corruption of parts of the window - there's a reason Windows doesn't have built in, supported transparency settings in the display manager.
When Avalon becomes part of Windows in 2006 or 2007, it will finally meet (and possibly exceed) the features of X.Org. But I also don't expect the X developers to just sit around waiting for that to happen.
The X server features this is demonstrating aren't "a tiny feature". While hardware accelerated composition is currently being used for transparency and drop shadows, it can also be used to accelerate a 3D desktop a la looking glass - it depends on whatever the composition manager can do. It's revolutionary because this is just the tip of the iceberg.
another 17" monitor will set you back US$100. Even if you have a 19" or 21" main screen, you'll appreciate the extra space. and you'll never go back
Right now, they're being used to do drop shadows and transparency - but the same extensions can also be used to reduce network bandwidth required for remote sessions or create a 3D desktop.
Composite, Damage, and the other new extensions are exactly the fundamental changes you claim are needed - the fact that the quickest way to show them off gives us some neat eye candy is just icing on the cake.
Also, Windows does not currently support this type of window compositing - it has basic alpha channel support, but there's a lot things these new extensions can do that Windows cannot, and won't until Avalon.
Yes; there are code cleanups, and the addition of -extensions-, which do not detract from core functionality.
The X.Org team is quite good; they'd have to be utterly crazy to break network compatibility with other X11 implementations.
Why do I have to reconfigure X to switch from my laptop's LCD to my external CRT? Why can't I use the nifty FN+F7 on my laptop or close the lid?
Why can't it detect when I'm docked and switch to dual head (LCD + CRT)?
The effects are cool, but alot of us would like to see these usability features too. I like using a graphical login, but I can't because I'm forced to have two X configurations. One for my LCD and one for my CRT.
All I want to know is "Will my X.org actually use my GRAPHICS CARD to render the desktop, not the CPU?" In other words, I don't want it to look prettier -- I want it to be faster. Pretty does not mean functional.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
How about
OpenGL,
SDL and OpenAL?
OpenAL for one is something few people seem to know about. I've developed sound systems using both DirectSound/DirectMusic directly as well as OpenAL - and there are worlds of difference between MS's obfuscated crAPI and OpenAL - It's actually a pleasure to write a capable 3D sound system on top of OpenAL.
We have the open standards. What I think we really need is more information for developers starting Linux development. More tutorials, more books, and more publically available (read: web) articles on how to get certain things to work under Linux, to make it easier for software engineers to make the transition and/or port of their software to Linux.
Finding good, clear sources of information on how to get certain things done is what I've found to be the biggest hurdle to start developing software for Linux. Maybe I just didn't know where and how to look, but I imagine I'm not the only one involved in programming, who has had that problem.
First, as long as you take the approach that Apple took with Aqua and Quartz in offloading the graphic work to the graphics card, then who cares? It barely affects CPU load and you get a better looking interface. It's just putting unused potential to work.
Second, why would you want to look at an ugly interface? Car makers put a lot of work into what you see when you're sitting in the driver's seat, right? Steering wheel, seats, dashboard... they've all been carefully designed for looks just like the outside of the car? Those of you complaining about UI eye-candy: do you also look for totally stripped down cars too? There is something to be said for aesthetics. Unless you're a robot, it affects you.
Third, some "eye-candy" can actually serve a purpose. For example: the "slurping" effect in OS X that so many people complain about actually acts as a visual cue, almost like a moving arrow, to show you exactly where your window is minimizing to. I never lose track of minimized windows in OS X, but I do it all the time on Windows. (Of course, it helps that OS X also has the added "eye-candy" of showing a minimized version of the window itself in the dock.)
Just a few things to consider. I don't think eye-candy is the Great Satan it's often made out to be and it's good to see X keeping pace.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
Now we just need to wait for Adobe and Macromedia to endorse Linux and it'll steal the graphic design folks from Apple.
Apple computers are so much more than just drop shadows and translucency. To get the designers, you would also need hardware as well designed as Apple hardware (read: designer hardware), you need to completely remove the need to go to the command line, you need to simplify the interface.
But most importantly, X needs proper colour matching support. Designers need to work with ICC profiles. Otherwise matching colours properly is not possible!!
It's possible for a 'user' to have a mousepad with offensive artwork on it. It's possible for them to have flowers in a vase on their desk that someone else in the office will be allergic to.
That doesn't mean that drab grey mousepads should be cemented to the desktop. It doesn't mean that flower vases should be prohibited.
I mean, let's not go overboard justifying Admin-From-Hell power trips, okay?
"What's the frequency Kenneth?"
Why should an admin have that right? For a fact, if ours did I would be finding ways to break their rules on a constant basis, just because they'd be ridiculous rules. Similarly, if our firewall were locked down too tightly, you can bet I'd be finding ways around it. Reasonable lockdown won't upset a user; unreasonable will, and will likely lead to far more trouble than letting the users use the harmless stuff. I've been on both sides of the fence, working as IT and working with IT, and I've observed enough environments to know that people will use less workarounds when they don't need to work around things to get what they want.
Given that many secretaries (in fact, *all* of ours - we have a security guard at our reception desk, and he doesn't get a computer) are not in the public view, and that of those who are in public view their machines are often not at all visible, why shouldn't they set hunk of the month as their background? What does it matter? If someone is offended by a bit of onscreen beefcake, too bad. As long as the company standards aren't being broken (which would prevent, e.g., nudie pics as backgrounds on engineer's machines in most cases), where's the harm? It's entirely possible that my wearing of a Star of David offends Muslims in my workplace, or that my visible facial piercing offends the strait-laced. However, neither of these interfere with *my* work and with the work of reasonably tolerant people. Similarly, beefcake on the desktop interferes with no ones' work except the overly sensitive.
Admins need to learn that users are probably more sensible in many areas (read: what is and is not an acceptable desktop background) than they are, and that the areas they should be locking are those where the admin actually does know more (read: lockdown installation privileges, lockdown inappropriate network use, enforce virus protection, etc.)
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
It's good to see this. I don't think the cpu cycles will be an issue according to moore's law. But, the issue of going blind by default needs to be worked through.
Do we need to set up a fund to have an artist make these damn things? I hear it's like 200K and a few years of work to do proper font creation. Perhaps a touch up to freetype fonts might be a faster way.
I just don't want to break any laws while trying not to go blind(apple/MS patents). Anti-aliasing has helped a bit in some situations.. but fonts seem to still be a turd. Suse I think even made their own type for their distro- SuseSans, etc. In any case, I'm open to somebody smarter than me giving some recommendations on how the community at large can have kickass fonts without going to jail. It seems to be a thorne in the side of linux userland. Again, I'm open to suggestions.
Comparing X to direct video access is rather like comparing ssh to the linux console. The latter will always be faster because there is no network bottleneck, but you can't use it to connect to your machine remotely.
Actually, that's not a good comparison, because when X runs locally it does not use the network, but instead uses shared memory. This is really fast, so the assertion that network transparency slows down X is a total myth.
What really makes X on linux slow is that there is almost no hardware acceleration (even with accelerated drivers). The RENDER framework, used for a lot of the gee-whiz graphical effects, is almost entirely non-accelerated. This is due to incompatibility between the X driver design and the RENDER framework which makes it incredibly difficult to write an accelerated implementation of it. This will get fixed when X.Org moves onto the kdrive driver framework.
What also hasn't helped historically is the fact that X runs in a separate process, and so you have to wait until the kernel wakes up the process before you see drawing occur. Older kernels were poor at recognizing when X needed to draw stuff, and so there was a noticeable delay between user action and the corresponding on-screen result. Ofcourse, if X ran in-kernel, any X crash would take down your entire system. I personally would rather have a small speed hit than have an unstable system.
It's not that we "only use the command line", it's that the command line offers ease and flexibility that the GUI does not.
As an example: I've been working on an OS X XServe... Really nice machine. Apple has the GUI setup to administer everything. Well, not quite everything maybe half. OK, OK, maybe not half, it's only about 10%. At best. All the real basics are covered. You can web sites, administer users, select whether they can access email, etc. Unfortunately, there is no provision for spam / virus filtering on the email server, and the httpd.conf is SOOO fucked up that I dumped the Apple version and used my own. Ditto with many of the other services. The GUI was just not complete enough, and even if it was, wholesale changes are easier on the command line. The good thing about OS X is that you CAN use the command line when the GUI fails to do what you need to do.
The contrast is Windows, where the GUI is everything and the command line is almost useless. Instead of firing up an editor on a config file, you need to use RegEdit and mouse navigate to each and every element that you need to change taking MUCH longer to acomplish similar tasks (that's assuming you can find where the stuff is hidden in the first place.)
This difference is why Unix admins can administer 10 times the number of machines that Windows administrators can (a factor MS doesn't use in it's TCO calculations...)
But theres no reason it can't be some flowers she like or a picture of her family. Things such as that don't look unproffesional, but rather it looks like the employees there are actually human.
Douglas P. Price