Perhaps, but I don't need it. At the very least X must provide a way to completely eliminate networking components on demand, including removal of networking libraries from hard disk. Every bit that has to do with networking should be removable and I personally want a distro w/o what to me is a bloat (i.e. by default w/o bloat).
>>As for ugly...
I was refering to concept not look. I agree, E/Gnome looks better than Windows, but you could write the whole thing on top of svgalib directly, especially since gtk is not rooted in X.
>>PPP is not in and of itself a GUI issue.
Agreed, but somehow, so far both Gnome's and KDE's versions of PPP frontends are not robust. An integrated desktop, which you cannot define, is to me an integrated way to do just about everything. In Linux world, where visual consistency cannot be enforced, it makes sense for every desktop environment to provide its own brand of common tools: browser, Office suite, config tools, Gimp, etc. so that they would all be from one source => look and feel the same. The point is that an integrated desktop is one where everything shares one look and feel right down to same toolbar buttons. And if you want something that behaves unpredictably - you should be able to run the rest of the software.
I agree that GUI is just one possible interface and you should be able to use any one you choose. But when you do choose to use GUI, it must be integrated, consistent, STABLE, and FAST. Eliminating X would go a long way toward achieving the last two goals. And Windows/Mac users, who came to Linux for speed and stability, but who do not want to give up GUI, will hopefully put an end to the shame that is X.
If corporations start massive Linux projects, people like IBM, Borland and Symantec will step in with good GUIs for reasonably powerful IDEs and then indeed there'll be a flood of people coding for Linux. The whole point is to be able to program WITHOUT learning the APIs, exclusively thru point and click. For example if I want background color to change when I push a button, then the GUI IDE should provide me with visual representation of both background and button object, analyze possible behaviors, present me with a drop-down list and allow to select the behavior that I want. Visual Age comes closest to this vision, btw.
I think that a big development from the influx of Windows programmers could be the end of X. This ugly monster with features that are not needed for a desktop OS (all networking code) and features that are outright missing (GOOD FONTS!!!) or done wrong (COLOR MANAGEMENT) will die sooner rather than later, due to Windows programmers. I hope that Windows people will make a desktop distro out of LInux, with all (most) networking code thrown out, with PPP done right and an integrated Desktop, whether they choose Gnome or KDE I don't care so long as it's polished and appealing.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought new Palm's packaging was its battery too. If so, it doesn't
surprise me that you needn't remove it.
This page, AFAICT, contained a puny javascript
and an HTML table. What's so difficult to render?
>>Networking in X is cool.
Perhaps, but I don't need it. At the very least X must provide a way to
completely eliminate networking components on demand, including removal
of networking libraries from hard disk. Every bit that has to do with
networking should be removable and I personally want a distro w/o what to
me is a bloat (i.e. by default w/o bloat).
>>As for ugly...
I was refering to concept not look. I agree, E/Gnome looks better than Windows,
but you could write the whole thing on top of svgalib directly, especially since
gtk is not rooted in X.
>>PPP is not in and of itself a GUI issue.
Agreed, but somehow, so far both Gnome's and KDE's versions of PPP frontends
are not robust. An integrated desktop, which you cannot define, is to me an
integrated way to do just about everything.
In Linux world, where visual consistency cannot be enforced, it makes sense
for every desktop environment to provide its own brand of common tools:
browser, Office suite, config tools, Gimp, etc. so that they would all be
from one source => look and feel the same. The point is that an integrated
desktop is one where everything shares one look and feel right down to same
toolbar buttons. And if you want something that behaves unpredictably - you
should be able to run the rest of the software.
I agree that GUI is just one possible interface and you should be able to use
any one you choose. But when you do choose to use GUI, it must be integrated,
consistent, STABLE, and FAST. Eliminating X would go a long way toward
achieving the last two goals. And Windows/Mac users, who came to Linux
for speed and stability, but who do not want to give up GUI, will hopefully
put an end to the shame that is X.
You mean:
dir *.mp3 > log.htm
It works on my PC. I had to reboot to windows just to check...
If corporations start massive Linux projects, people like IBM, Borland and
Symantec will step in with good GUIs for reasonably powerful IDEs
and then indeed there'll be a flood of people coding for Linux. The whole
point is to be able to program WITHOUT learning the APIs, exclusively
thru point and click.
For example if I want background color to change when I push a button,
then the GUI IDE should provide me with visual representation of
both background and button object, analyze possible behaviors,
present me with a drop-down list and allow to select the behavior
that I want. Visual Age comes closest to this vision, btw.
I think that a big development from the influx of Windows programmers
could be the end of X. This ugly monster with features that are not needed
for a desktop OS (all networking code) and features that are outright
missing (GOOD FONTS!!!) or done wrong (COLOR MANAGEMENT) will
die sooner rather than later, due to Windows programmers.
I hope that Windows people will make a desktop distro out of LInux,
with all (most) networking code thrown out, with PPP done right
and an integrated Desktop, whether they choose Gnome or KDE I don't
care so long as it's polished and appealing.
Better yet, use vi exclusively, dumbhead.