So why does a server OS need a fast GUI?
on
Open Source Windows
·
· Score: 1
Well, why does Linux need a text prompt? Or a keyboard/video display driver?
We should all just use logic analyzers to peek/poke the memory in our machines.
In other words, a UI of any sort is always useful. Sure, some people find a text UI more efficient. But just because it's "a server OS" does not automatically mean it should be hard to use. Even sysadmins, the people probably interacting with the "server OSes", don't mind having a nice dialog box popping up and telling them what is wrong, and how to fix it, once in a while, instead of trolling through/var/log/*, you know.
Whether it is in the kernel or not, that is debatable, I'll grant. But as to whether it is part of the OS, that is a rather pointless remark you've made there.
Oh yes, X performance does suck often. Try running the Mesa OpenGL demos in a X-Window sometime.
Or load a big graphic file in Netscape (not a HTML file, so you can't blame Netscape's HTML renderer), turn on full-window drag, and start moving it around in front of and under other windows.
Then do the same thing in Windows, with the same graphics card, but with the Windows drivers. 95% of the time performance under Windows wil be much better than under X. Of course, you can say that XFree86 drivers aren't quite as tuned, etc., but simple bitblt operations just take a lot longer under X for most implementations.
Not that I like Windows that much either, but you run into a fundamental design issue when deciding to put graphics support in the kernel. You can't have both speed and stability. Network drivers under UNIX are an example of the other way around - network cards are a special case of driver in the UNIX kernel, and so the code can be really darn fast. But wedging network cards have been known to take down UNIX boxes pretty badly and leave them locked up solid. Pick your poison.
NT 3.51 didn't have the GUI in the kernel-space. And graphics performanced sucked as a result - so they moved it back. Kind of the same problem the Mach kernel had originally; the microkernel was just too slow so they had to move more and more functionality back into the base code just to keep speed up.
However, there are advantages that NT's kernel has over Linux - namely, the whole mess involved with loadable kernel modules (LKMs) under Linux is quite a bit cleaner under NT because NT's kernel is more modular. Linux's being a monolithic kernel makes some things more difficult, although speed certainly is better for a lot of operations.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, why does Linux need a text prompt?
/var/log/*, you know.
Or a keyboard/video display driver?
We should all just use logic analyzers to
peek/poke the memory in our machines.
In other words, a UI of any sort is always useful.
Sure, some people find a text UI more efficient.
But just because it's "a server OS" does not
automatically mean it should be hard to use.
Even sysadmins, the people probably interacting
with the "server OSes", don't mind having a nice
dialog box popping up and telling them what is
wrong, and how to fix it, once in a while, instead
of trolling through
Whether it is in the kernel or not, that is
debatable, I'll grant. But as to whether it is
part of the OS, that is a rather pointless remark
you've made there.
Oh yes, X performance does suck often.
Try running the Mesa OpenGL demos in a X-Window
sometime.
Or load a big graphic file in Netscape (not a
HTML file, so you can't blame Netscape's
HTML renderer), turn on full-window drag, and start moving it around in front
of and under other windows.
Then do the same thing in Windows, with the same
graphics card, but with the Windows drivers.
95% of the time performance under Windows wil be
much better than under X. Of course, you can
say that XFree86 drivers aren't quite as tuned,
etc., but simple bitblt operations just take
a lot longer under X for most implementations.
Not that I like Windows that much either, but
you run into a fundamental design issue when
deciding to put graphics support in the kernel.
You can't have both speed and stability. Network
drivers under UNIX are an example of the other
way around - network cards are a special case
of driver in the UNIX kernel, and so the code
can be really darn fast. But wedging network
cards have been known to take down UNIX boxes
pretty badly and leave them locked up solid. Pick
your poison.
NT 3.51 didn't have the GUI in the kernel-space.
And graphics performanced sucked as a result -
so they moved it back. Kind of the same problem
the Mach kernel had originally; the microkernel
was just too slow so they had to move more and
more functionality back into the base code just
to keep speed up.
However, there are advantages that NT's kernel
has over Linux - namely, the whole mess involved
with loadable kernel modules (LKMs) under Linux
is quite a bit cleaner under NT because NT's
kernel is more modular. Linux's being
a monolithic kernel makes some things more
difficult, although speed certainly is better
for a lot of operations.