Now all we have to do is shrink OURSELVES so that we can use these micro devices (imagine Will Ferrell fashion designer character with micro-phone here).
So what you are saying is that they are STILL reinventing the wheel, but at least since it will be a "standard" reinvented wheel, they can all work together to reinvent it right? Well, I guess that is "sort of" progress...
I'm sort of cynical about Sun tranforming into a desktop operating system vendor... do they have any experience doing this? I think the best they could hope to do would be to throw money (and influence) at the existing open source projects with the best chance of acceptance.
Yeah, usually it takes two parents to "fork" (often several times) before a "child" results, but in this modern technological age children can be instantiated artificially (often for parents in different address spaces).
"The **only** reason Linux is so popular today is because of the single windowing system."
Actually that's way wrong, and if you notice Linux is so NOT popular today on the desktop. (it is popular on the server where graphics largely don't matter, or at *least* were not a convincing feature)
"cleaner interaction between applications displaying on the same desktop-- most of the "hacks" won't let applications running in different places share a desktop transparently"
This is ONE of two arguments I have seen for "built in network transparency" vs. "add-on remoting". And I think it is sort of weak because the whole argument is that the remote windows integrate "invisibly" into your desktop. Really, how much is that worth?
The other argument is in the case where your server does not run any gui at all and relies solely on displaying the gui over the network.
"Linux treads a middle road by design here - it's impractical and stupid to move a graphics subsystem into the kernel - but graphics apps could use more speed so you use things like the DRI and kernel tweaks."
If it is a module, who cares? I can choose to add it to my kernel, and you don't have to. Tada, choice in action.
The graphics is close to the metal in X11: you send the server a bunch of high-level operations you want it to execute and it does it for you, using hardware acceleration and highly optimized drawing routines.
Perhaps all these XRender, RANDR, whatever extensions provide this, but I fail to see how "high-level operations" are going to produce, for instance, photo-realistic bitmap graphics, opengl-accelerated graphics, etc. AFAIK, it is either mass bitmap-copy, or use a "special" local native API that circumvents the network transparency (really, what are you going to do send opengl commands over the wire to the client??).
Something that David Wexelblat posted bothers me. I'm sort of confused by his stance, because while he admittedly does not use X, he is at the same time airing his criticisms of it, yet refusing to let Keith Packard fork gracefully. Anyway the bit that bothers me:
"- There is no reason for Core Team matters to be public. This is the leadership forum, not a public forum."
What is the difference between Core Team members keeping their plans secret and not allowing the public to participate, and Keith Packard keeping *his* plans secret and not letting the Core Team know about them, which he is getting lambasted for? Sort of hypocritical. If the X license is an Open Source license, the Core Team doesn't have any special rights with regard to modification and distribution than Joe Hacker who wants to fork it does. X (X11R6) hasn't changed in a hell of a lot of time (relative to most opens source projects), so what is the purpose of shielding XFree from the public? Some panties need to be untied.
Well, it looks like at least one other X developer is asking the same question I am:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/29881.htm l
"I've been working in the Windows world for years now, and client-server display systems are utterly irrelevant to the majority of real-world computer users. X needs to be replaced by a direct-rendered model, on which a backwards-compatible X server can be reasonably trivially implemented".
"The idea of being able to remote individual windows isn't relevent to the vast majority of desktop users," explained Wexelblat. "So the paradigm really needs to be inverted -direct-rendered desktop, with remotability." --David Wexelblat
On AIX machines I use tcsh as my interactive shell, but write scripts in ksh, and drop into ksh if I want to test something out. ksh is great for scripting but really sucks for interactivity.
On Linux machines I go with Bash...it's the best of both worlds, but does use a lot of memory at cold start (~5 megs last time I checked).
I've heard great things abotu zsh, but haven't really tried it.
By the way, does anybody else think that readline is the most evil thing on the face of the earth?
Slashdot Mirror
duh, it's elitistical
Maybe it will be able to run on Cygwin (one can dream...)
Will the real Ximinem please stand up?
Now all we have to do is shrink OURSELVES so that we can use these micro devices (imagine Will Ferrell fashion designer character with micro-phone here).
Either that or the "laws" of nature are not laws, but merely guidelines, or emergent phenomenon.
In Las Vegas perhaps...
Really, should they be selling such software to people that ostensibly "work" in "offices"?
Here is your parachute and here is the manual.
Welcome to Linux.
When MS gives software away to subscribers early, but gives it to the world FREE after a week, then come back and complain...
I was going to post a "enter all lame ironic jokes here" comment, but I see I am too late...
Ok, here is my lame attempt:
In other news today - New guide animal for the blind: also blind.
So what you are saying is that they are STILL reinventing the wheel, but at least since it will be a "standard" reinvented wheel, they can all work together to reinvent it right? Well, I guess that is "sort of" progress...
I'm sort of cynical about Sun tranforming into a desktop operating system vendor... do they have any experience doing this? I think the best they could hope to do would be to throw money (and influence) at the existing open source projects with the best chance of acceptance.
Yeah, usually it takes two parents to "fork" (often several times) before a "child" results, but in this modern technological age children can be instantiated artificially (often for parents in different address spaces).
At which point it would no longer be X, in which case you might as well just start a new project (or fork).
"The **only** reason Linux is so popular today is because of the single windowing system."
Actually that's way wrong, and if you notice Linux is so NOT popular today on the desktop. (it is popular on the server where graphics largely don't matter, or at *least* were not a convincing feature)
"cleaner interaction between applications displaying on the same desktop-- most of the "hacks" won't let applications running in different places share a desktop transparently"
This is ONE of two arguments I have seen for "built in network transparency" vs. "add-on remoting". And I think it is sort of weak because the whole argument is that the remote windows integrate "invisibly" into your desktop. Really, how much is that worth?
The other argument is in the case where your server does not run any gui at all and relies solely on displaying the gui over the network.
Amen.
"Linux treads a middle road by design here - it's impractical and stupid to move a graphics subsystem into the kernel - but graphics apps could use more speed so you use things like the DRI and kernel tweaks."
If it is a module, who cares? I can choose to add it to my kernel, and you don't have to. Tada, choice in action.
"But, I'm not using it to play games."
Yeah, who uses a graphics system to play games, except, uh, the _overwhelming majority_ of computer users.
Something that David Wexelblat posted bothers me. I'm sort of confused by his stance, because while he admittedly does not use X, he is at the same time airing his criticisms of it, yet refusing to let Keith Packard fork gracefully. Anyway the bit that bothers me:
"- There is no reason for Core Team matters to be public. This is the
leadership forum, not a public forum."
What is the difference between Core Team members keeping their plans secret and not allowing the public to participate, and Keith Packard keeping *his* plans secret and not letting the Core Team know about them, which he is getting lambasted for? Sort of hypocritical. If the X license is an Open Source license, the Core Team doesn't have any special rights with regard to modification and distribution than Joe Hacker who wants to fork it does. X (X11R6) hasn't changed in a hell of a lot of time (relative to most opens source projects), so what is the purpose of shielding XFree from the public? Some panties need to be untied.
...X is in need of a regime change. /me ducks
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/29881.ht
On AIX machines I use tcsh as my interactive shell, but write scripts in ksh, and drop into ksh if I want to test something out. ksh is great for scripting but really sucks for interactivity.
On Linux machines I go with Bash...it's the best of both worlds, but does use a lot of memory at cold start (~5 megs last time I checked).
I've heard great things abotu zsh, but haven't really tried it.
By the way, does anybody else think that readline is the most evil thing on the face of the earth?