You do not need to re-design X to be able to design a consistent predictable user-interface! It needs to said a thousand times: X is not a GUI. Examples are GNOME and KDE which are both trying to achieve the goal of a consistent user-interface by building on top of X.
The parent poster has correctly pointed out why none of the usual criticisms of X so often mentioned by other ignorant posters are valid. Please moderate his post as Insightful.
Where did you get the idea that "except for the thing where all of your x session goes over the loopback device on the local machine"? That's totally incorrect. An X session uses Unix domain sockets for all locally displayed, locally run applications. Running ifconfig a few times in an xterm will help you prove it yourself.
X is not slow and and it's not "clunky" by which I assume you mean visually ugly. X has never been slow and it will never be slow. I've got an old 66MHz i486 with 8MB RAM and it runs X just fine, much faster than MS Windows 95. On modern hardware, X runs blazingly fast and as fast as, or for well-written applications using XShm/Render, faster than Windows XP. Many applications for X are badly written and/or use a bloated widget library (nothing to do with X). Any clunkiness has nothing to do with X and everything to do with the particular applications you are using and the particular widget libraries they were linked against. X is a set of libraries and header files that implement the X11 protocol. X doesn't care whether you use beautiful or ugly widget libraries; that choice is given to the programmer.
The whole point of separating window management from X is to give you the freedom to choose which window manager to run. If you were to write the applications for X in the way you like them, you can make any environment you like that is as unified or disunified as you like. X gives you that freedom. It seems you have a Windows background, don't know much about X yet, and consequently have completely misunderstood the strengths and weaknesses of X.
"4.Severe security issues in the protocol. Especially no encrypted operation at NATO standard SECPROT level 4"
What a hilariously absurd comment! I can just imagine this guy's physically insecure office or home PC equally lacking TEMPEST-approved hardware and secured BIOS, and the terrible risks he must surely be exposed to (day in and day out!) due to the lack of NATO standard SECPROT level 4 encryption!
To say the security of X is horrible because silly people have done "xhost +" is ridiculous! Doing "xhost +" should make absolutely no difference to your computer's security with respect to network attacks because your computer should have a firewall which (at least) blocks incoming and outgoing X11 connections. Anyway, if you want to run X applications on remote computers, the best way to do so is to use ssh for securely forwarding the X11 connections to/from the remote computers., e.g.
You probably shouldn't be blaming the "network code" for slowing your computer "in some cases".
Do you know that if you run a Linux desktop with the X Window System and GNOME/KDE, you are not necessarily using the networking features of X?
To use the networking features of X on your computer, you would need to login, over a network such as the internet, from your computer, which is running an X server like XFree86, to a remote computer, and, on that remote computer, start an X application, like xv, which would be displayed on your computer's display by having the remote computer communicate the graphics over the network to your computer's display. That's an example of actually using the networking features of X. That would also be slow unless you use a protocol accelerator/compressor for X which makes X completely usable even over a slow 28kbps network connection.
The X Window System is a set of libraries and header files which implement the X11 protocol. There has been support at the library level for 5-button mice since at least 1993, version X11R6. The X11/X.h header file defines Button1Mask,..., Button5Mask.
The XFree86 server is (mainly) a set of drivers for various graphics hardware. It is possible XFree86 may not support your particular 5-button mouse. Without further information it's not possible to know. Please give the exact model name of your 5-button mouse and the exact version of XFree86 which are using.
The redwood trees are tough but that doesn't mean they're immune to any of the factors known to affect tree health. For example, one of the most basic factors affecting tree health is water supply. Any tree will start dying if water availability in its root zone is reduced below a survival threshold value. We know that compared to 50 years or more ago, California has been consuming more and more water, especially groundwater, to the extent that there are water supply arguments. In many places the water table has been dropping even during wetter years. This could be a pointer to the cause of the trees' problems.
Each tree is growing - or dying - slightly differently from its neighbouring trees due to different local conditions. This means we can study the differences between trees and relate them to differences in local conditions. If we can work out why some trees are doing better than others, then we have a chance of working out how to improve the conditions for the trees that are dying. The micromote project is collecting basic information on local conditions such as temperature and humidity which will enable this research to reach conclusions in the next couple of years.
As tea and coffee are the most powerful tooth stainers, how about neutralizing the staining ingredients first before they can get into your mouth by adding a de-colorizer like activated charcoal and a pinch of baking soda to your tea and coffee?
If you are a competent well-educated programmer, why would you need to take somebody else's code when you could simply design and implement your own solution in as much time as a reverse-engineering effort would probably take?
Code or pseudocode is available free for many thousands of tough algorithmic problems which have been studied and published in the literature (e.g. Knuth et al) which is to be found in most good university libraries and/or the Internet.
Yes, the stylus is neat but I still prefer to use keys because they let me type text faster than any other method I've tried. Having to carry a separate keypad because your mobile phone has bad keys is a nuisance. If a phone is designed to have keys then I think there is no reason the keys cannot be excellent like those on the original Nokia 8210/8310 handsets!
For me, there is only one feature on a phone that really counts: the keys.
The best keypad I've used was on the Nokia 8310/8210 handsets: tough, precise, no wobble, consistent springiness, rectangular keytops.
The Sony Ericsson T65i and the P800 both have a really
unpleasant set of wobbly keys, with inconsistently stiff springs. Similarly the latest Nokia handsets all have horrid keys.
Surely, you're kidding? All Nokia phones can backup your contacts/addresses to another handset wirelessly using IR -- no cable required. Any good retailer with Nokia stock will offer to do this for their customers when they buy a new handset. Anyway, I don't need Bluetooth; for me it's a waste of time and battery power, so I turn it off.
mac/laptop/pda: In many urban areas of the world, to use a mobile phone handset in public is to risk inviting a street robbery. In my capital city (not an atypical city), only a fool would also carry a laptop/PDA in public because that amplifies the robbery risk. If you don't believe that, check out the police robbery statistics (sometimes broken down into a category for theft of phone handsets) for major cities in most of the G8 countries. Anyway, not many people I know like carrying more than one gadget at a time.
Yes, the T68i's joystick is fun and sometimes even useful but the joystick is almost useless for writing text. I also find predictive text input on all phones to be very ineffective. The other real problem with every Sony/Ericsson T68i/T68/T9000/T(any model you like) handset is that they have slowWWWW responses compared to Nokias -- every menu, every keypress, every joystick movement gives a lagged response. I don't think a 250+msecs lag is acceptable. The Nokia 8210/8310 handsets have delightfully quick responses.
For me, there is only one feature on a phone that really counts: the keys.
The best keypad I've used was on the Nokia 8310/8210 handsets: tough, precise, no wobble, consistent springiness, rectangular keytops.
The Sony Ericsson T65i has a really unpleasant set of wobbly keys, with inconsistently stiff springs. Similarly the latest Nokia handsets all have horrid keys.
I think that's wrong. The GPL licence implies fundamental financial differences between GPL software and open-source software.GPL software may be distributed by anyone in return for any amount of money, including no money at all. You may not want to release or distribute software that is under a GPL licence; your company may also choose not to do so; but if someone somewhere likes the GPL licence and wants to distribute free-of-charge a piece of software they have written as GPL software or to re-distribute free-of-charge existing GPL software written by somebody else, nobody else can stop them, without legal recourse.
Financial issue #1: Anyone is always free to distribute GPL softwarefree-of-charge. Nobody can prevent someone else distributing GPL software free-of-charge or for any amount of money, without legal recourse. By contrast, with certain open-source software the licence says everyone may not distribute it, whether free-of-charge or for money.
Financial issue #2: Anyone is always free to use GPL softwarefree-of-charge. With GPL software nobody can stop someone else using it free-of-charge, without legal recourse. However, with certain open-source software the licence says everyone may not use it free-of-charge.
Money is therefore a vital aspect of the way the GPL affects software usage and distribution. This is a major difference with respect to many types of open-source software licences.
When you said, "those who view source redistribution to be a right, have invented a license to guarantee that right", you have misunderstood the way the "common law" legal system works in countries like the USA and the UK; unless there is a specific law that forbids you from doing something, then you are generally free in law to act as you choose so long as your actions do not harm anybody or anything else (which would create a tort). If you obtain a piece of software, that software is provided to you under a software licence which is interpreted according to the principles of contract law. Therefore, by default -- no need for any extra licence(s) -- you already have the legal right to do whatever you like with a piece of software unless the legal contract you enter when you accept a software licence explicitly removes your right to take certain actions.
Most commercial software licences take away rights that you would otherwise have by default. When you have rights by default, then a licence which takes away rights, whether willingly entered or not, must be correctly described as causing a loss of rights to the end user of the software. Whether the end-users' loss of rights is good or bad from the point of view of the software author/rights-holder depends on management strategy, shareholder expectations, market competition, etc. Nonetheless, I think the advantages of GPL software -- apart from price -- from the point of view of end users -- especially of end-users who are not interested in source-code availability -- are so strongly appreciated when explained in non-technical plain English, that any GPL software which has an adequate feature set and sufficient usability for end-users will eventually achieve greater distribution and usage than equivalent commercial software, whether open-source or not. This process will be damaging to commercial software companies that do not adapt and develop ways of cooperating with and harnessing GPL software for their benefit e.g. by selling correctly priced add-on services (no unsustainable "dot-com" marketing strategies).
Lastly, I think you can be a programmer and still find the distinction between closed-source software and open-source software to be absolutely vital in many senses. You cannot speak for all programmers. It depends on the situation, the programmer, the software, the licences, the business, the management, the costs, the benefits, etc.
I think you missed the reason why the GPL licence is unique. Not all open-source software licences guarantee you have the right to redistribute source code without limitations. Some open-source licences are ambiguous on what, if any, rights you have to redistribute source code. Other open-source licences try in various ways to restrict your right to redistribute source code.
In contrast, the Gnu General Public License guarantees in clear English that you, as well as everyone else, have the right to redistribute the source code free-of-charge, or if you prefer for no more than the reasonable cost of providing storage media etc.
There is no ambiguity about the meaning of the GPL licence. That's the real benefit of being able to have GPL-licensed free software as opposed to any other type of open-source software licence. I'm not saying one type of licence is better than the other for all purposes. However, if you value your right to redistribute source-code then the GPL licence is probably the best choice when considering which software to use.
Despite the fact that free software is sometimes sold, e.g. by the FSF, the Gnu General Public License guarantees that free software has the legal property that nobody is allowed to prevent anyone from distributing any free software completely free-of-charge, even free software that is being sold by someone else.
It's only "unlikely", as you claim, if the US govt never changes the method of getting OS certification. Although it is currently expensive to get the certification for an OS in the US, the method may change and the costs may fall.
In some other countries,there is no certification process to go through and OS software and free software are already used in applications which in the US would normally require certification.
In Europe. I've never seen any Nextel ads while here. Actually I don't think the Nextel mobile phones are as well known as you seem to think, even in the US. As I said in my previous post, Nextel wasn't mentioned once in the discussion on wireless peer-to-peer mobile phones last June, despite there being 216 comments.
Yes, the Nextel phone is a great example of a wireless peer-to-peer mobile phone. Thanks for the link. The concept of wireless peer-to-peer mobiles was discussed here in June 2002 in June last year but interestingly nobody mentioned the Nextel phone then although it seems from the Nextel website the phone has been around for longer than a year.
It would be great if one of the handset manufacturers would make a true mobile phone with wireless peer-to-peer walkie-talkie-style communications. You could talk free of charge for as long as you like on your mobile phone to other users on your chosen frequency channel whenever they are within range of your handset. Unfortunately, Nokia's new handsets can't do this. Here's hoping...
Slashdot Mirror
You do not need to re-design X to be able to design a consistent predictable user-interface! It needs to said a thousand times: X is not a GUI. Examples are GNOME and KDE which are both trying to achieve the goal of a consistent user-interface by building on top of X.
The parent poster has correctly pointed out why none of the usual criticisms of X so often mentioned by other ignorant posters are valid. Please moderate his post as Insightful.
X is not slow and and it's not "clunky" by which I assume you mean visually ugly. X has never been slow and it will never be slow. I've got an old 66MHz i486 with 8MB RAM and it runs X just fine, much faster than MS Windows 95. On modern hardware, X runs blazingly fast and as fast as, or for well-written applications using XShm/Render, faster than Windows XP. Many applications for X are badly written and/or use a bloated widget library (nothing to do with X). Any clunkiness has nothing to do with X and everything to do with the particular applications you are using and the particular widget libraries they were linked against. X is a set of libraries and header files that implement the X11 protocol. X doesn't care whether you use beautiful or ugly widget libraries; that choice is given to the programmer.
The whole point of separating window management from X is to give you the freedom to choose which window manager to run. If you were to write the applications for X in the way you like them, you can make any environment you like that is as unified or disunified as you like. X gives you that freedom. It seems you have a Windows background, don't know much about X yet, and consequently have completely misunderstood the strengths and weaknesses of X.
"4.Severe security issues in the protocol. Especially no encrypted operation at NATO standard SECPROT level 4"
What a hilariously absurd comment! I can just imagine this guy's physically insecure office or home PC equally lacking TEMPEST-approved hardware and secured BIOS, and the terrible risks he must surely be exposed to (day in and day out!) due to the lack of NATO standard SECPROT level 4 encryption!
To say the security of X is horrible because silly people have done "xhost +" is ridiculous! Doing "xhost +" should make absolutely no difference to your computer's security with respect to network attacks because your computer should have a firewall which (at least) blocks incoming and outgoing X11 connections. Anyway, if you want to run X applications on remote computers, the best way to do so is to use ssh for securely forwarding the X11 connections to/from the remote computers., e.g.
ssh -X -l login_name remote_computer
or
ssh -X -l login_name remote_computer X_program
You probably shouldn't be blaming the "network code" for slowing your computer "in some cases".
Do you know that if you run a Linux desktop with the X Window System and GNOME/KDE, you are not necessarily using the networking features of X?
To use the networking features of X on your computer, you would need to login, over a network such as the internet, from your computer, which is running an X server like XFree86, to a remote computer, and, on that remote computer, start an X application, like xv , which would be displayed on your computer's display by having the remote computer communicate the graphics over the network to your computer's display. That's an example of actually using the networking features of X. That would also be slow unless you use a protocol accelerator/compressor for X which makes X completely usable even over a slow 28kbps network connection.
The XFree86 server is (mainly) a set of drivers for various graphics hardware. It is possible XFree86 may not support your particular 5-button mouse. Without further information it's not possible to know. Please give the exact model name of your 5-button mouse and the exact version of XFree86 which are using.
The redwood trees are tough but that doesn't mean they're immune to any of the factors known to affect tree health. For example, one of the most basic factors affecting tree health is water supply. Any tree will start dying if water availability in its root zone is reduced below a survival threshold value. We know that compared to 50 years or more ago, California has been consuming more and more water, especially groundwater, to the extent that there are water supply arguments. In many places the water table has been dropping even during wetter years. This could be a pointer to the cause of the trees' problems.
Each tree is growing - or dying - slightly differently from its neighbouring trees due to different local conditions. This means we can study the differences between trees and relate them to differences in local conditions. If we can work out why some trees are doing better than others, then we have a chance of working out how to improve the conditions for the trees that are dying. The micromote project is collecting basic information on local conditions such as temperature and humidity which will enable this research to reach conclusions in the next couple of years.
As tea and coffee are the most powerful tooth stainers, how about neutralizing the staining ingredients first before they can get into your mouth by adding a de-colorizer like activated charcoal and a pinch of baking soda to your tea and coffee?
Code or pseudocode is available free for many thousands of tough algorithmic problems which have been studied and published in the literature (e.g. Knuth et al) which is to be found in most good university libraries and/or the Internet.
I couldn't even see the article without first yanking out all the 116 html errors in Scienceblog's webpage. With html like that, who needs popup ads?
Yes, the stylus is neat but I still prefer to use keys because they let me type text faster than any other method I've tried. Having to carry a separate keypad because your mobile phone has bad keys is a nuisance. If a phone is designed to have keys then I think there is no reason the keys cannot be excellent like those on the original Nokia 8210/8310 handsets!
For me, there is only one feature on a phone that really counts: the keys.
The best keypad I've used was on the Nokia 8310/8210 handsets: tough, precise, no wobble, consistent springiness, rectangular keytops.
The Sony Ericsson T65i and the P800 both have a really unpleasant set of wobbly keys, with inconsistently stiff springs. Similarly the latest Nokia handsets all have horrid keys.
Surely, you're kidding? All Nokia phones can backup your contacts/addresses to another handset wirelessly using IR -- no cable required. Any good retailer with Nokia stock will offer to do this for their customers when they buy a new handset. Anyway, I don't need Bluetooth; for me it's a waste of time and battery power, so I turn it off.
mac/laptop/pda: In many urban areas of the world, to use a mobile phone handset in public is to risk inviting a street robbery. In my capital city (not an atypical city), only a fool would also carry a laptop/PDA in public because that amplifies the robbery risk. If you don't believe that, check out the police robbery statistics (sometimes broken down into a category for theft of phone handsets) for major cities in most of the G8 countries. Anyway, not many people I know like carrying more than one gadget at a time.
Yes, the T68i's joystick is fun and sometimes even useful but the joystick is almost useless for writing text. I also find predictive text input on all phones to be very ineffective. The other real problem with every Sony/Ericsson T68i/T68/T9000/T(any model you like) handset is that they have slowWWWW responses compared to Nokias -- every menu, every keypress, every joystick movement gives a lagged response. I don't think a 250+msecs lag is acceptable. The Nokia 8210/8310 handsets have delightfully quick responses.
For me, there is only one feature on a phone that really counts: the keys.
The best keypad I've used was on the Nokia 8310/8210 handsets: tough, precise, no wobble, consistent springiness, rectangular keytops.
The Sony Ericsson T65i has a really unpleasant set of wobbly keys, with inconsistently stiff springs. Similarly the latest Nokia handsets all have horrid keys.
>You say that like it's a good thing or something.
You say that like certification is necessarily a good thing.
"My point was that money is not the difference"
I think that's wrong. The GPL licence implies fundamental financial differences between GPL software and open-source software. GPL software may be distributed by anyone in return for any amount of money, including no money at all. You may not want to release or distribute software that is under a GPL licence; your company may also choose not to do so; but if someone somewhere likes the GPL licence and wants to distribute free-of-charge a piece of software they have written as GPL software or to re-distribute free-of-charge existing GPL software written by somebody else, nobody else can stop them, without legal recourse.
- Financial issue #1:
- Financial issue #2:
Money is therefore a vital aspect of the way the GPL affects software usage and distribution. This is a major difference with respect to many types of open-source software licences.Anyone is always free to distribute GPL software free-of-charge. Nobody can prevent someone else distributing GPL software free-of-charge or for any amount of money, without legal recourse. By contrast, with certain open-source software the licence says everyone may not distribute it, whether free-of-charge or for money.
Anyone is always free to use GPL software free-of-charge. With GPL software nobody can stop someone else using it free-of-charge, without legal recourse. However, with certain open-source software the licence says everyone may not use it free-of-charge.
When you said, "those who view source redistribution to be a right, have invented a license to guarantee that right", you have misunderstood the way the "common law" legal system works in countries like the USA and the UK; unless there is a specific law that forbids you from doing something, then you are generally free in law to act as you choose so long as your actions do not harm anybody or anything else (which would create a tort). If you obtain a piece of software, that software is provided to you under a software licence which is interpreted according to the principles of contract law. Therefore, by default -- no need for any extra licence(s) -- you already have the legal right to do whatever you like with a piece of software unless the legal contract you enter when you accept a software licence explicitly removes your right to take certain actions.
Most commercial software licences take away rights that you would otherwise have by default. When you have rights by default, then a licence which takes away rights, whether willingly entered or not, must be correctly described as causing a loss of rights to the end user of the software. Whether the end-users' loss of rights is good or bad from the point of view of the software author/rights-holder depends on management strategy, shareholder expectations, market competition, etc. Nonetheless, I think the advantages of GPL software -- apart from price -- from the point of view of end users -- especially of end-users who are not interested in source-code availability -- are so strongly appreciated when explained in non-technical plain English, that any GPL software which has an adequate feature set and sufficient usability for end-users will eventually achieve greater distribution and usage than equivalent commercial software, whether open-source or not. This process will be damaging to commercial software companies that do not adapt and develop ways of cooperating with and harnessing GPL software for their benefit e.g. by selling correctly priced add-on services (no unsustainable "dot-com" marketing strategies).
Lastly, I think you can be a programmer and still find the distinction between closed-source software and open-source software to be absolutely vital in many senses. You cannot speak for all programmers. It depends on the situation, the programmer, the software, the licences, the business, the management, the costs, the benefits, etc.
I think you missed the reason why the GPL licence is unique. Not all open-source software licences guarantee you have the right to redistribute source code without limitations. Some open-source licences are ambiguous on what, if any, rights you have to redistribute source code. Other open-source licences try in various ways to restrict your right to redistribute source code.
In contrast, the Gnu General Public License guarantees in clear English that you, as well as everyone else, have the right to redistribute the source code free-of-charge, or if you prefer for no more than the reasonable cost of providing storage media etc.
There is no ambiguity about the meaning of the GPL licence. That's the real benefit of being able to have GPL-licensed free software as opposed to any other type of open-source software licence. I'm not saying one type of licence is better than the other for all purposes. However, if you value your right to redistribute source-code then the GPL licence is probably the best choice when considering which software to use.
Despite the fact that free software is sometimes sold, e.g. by the FSF, the Gnu General Public License guarantees that free software has the legal property that nobody is allowed to prevent anyone from distributing any free software completely free-of-charge, even free software that is being sold by someone else.
It's only "unlikely", as you claim, if the US govt never changes the method of getting OS certification. Although it is currently expensive to get the certification for an OS in the US, the method may change and the costs may fall.
In some other countries,there is no certification process to go through and OS software and free software are already used in applications which in the US would normally require certification.
"OS software is free as in speech, NOT as in beer."
Yes, that sometime is true of "open-source" software but free software is free as in speech, AND as in free beer.
"Where have you been?"
In Europe. I've never seen any Nextel ads while here. Actually I don't think the Nextel mobile phones are as well known as you seem to think, even in the US. As I said in my previous post, Nextel wasn't mentioned once in the discussion on wireless peer-to-peer mobile phones last June, despite there being 216 comments.
Yes, the Nextel phone is a great example of a wireless peer-to-peer mobile phone. Thanks for the link. The concept of wireless peer-to-peer mobiles was discussed here in June 2002 in June last year but interestingly nobody mentioned the Nextel phone then although it seems from the Nextel website the phone has been around for longer than a year.
It would be great if one of the handset manufacturers would make a true mobile phone with wireless peer-to-peer walkie-talkie-style communications. You could talk free of charge for as long as you like on your mobile phone to other users on your chosen frequency channel whenever they are within range of your handset. Unfortunately, Nokia's new handsets can't do this. Here's hoping...