Have you actually set an X resource in your life? Motif can be *made* to look nice. Simply because it isn't by default, like GTK+ is, doesn't mean that it is crap.
I would *prefer* working with GTK+ or Qt to working with Motif, but Motif is by no means inferior, and, in some ways, is superior. I *like* X resources!
Uhm, X cannot handle modern displays? It works fine at 1280x1024x32 (at least until my monitor stops working --- crappy 15"). It supports glx and dri, which provide 3d acceleration capabilities.
As for fonts....
X supports most font types imaginable. Either X or its font servers (XFree 4.0.1 supports these fonts natively) support various Adobe types, e.g. Type1, bitmap fonts, speedo fonts, *and* the usual truetype fonts.
I hate logical font descriptors, and that is why I say X needs work on fonts, but otherwise it is fine.
Stop spreading this myth!
Re:A lovely summary of all that's wrong with X
on
X Windows Must Die!
·
· Score: 1
I trust nothing from the unix-haters handbook. By defined, they cannot provide an objective evaluation! Gah!
Hear hear! I like X as well --- It, in the words of its own documentation, enforced mechanism, not policy, which, IMO, is a *good* thing. I happen to hate Motif, but at least I can use a GTK or Qt, or perhaps Athena or XForms based app instead. Flexability is critically important.
Besides, I wish all the people who continually while that "X is slow" and "X is bloated" to actually look at the speed and memory consumption of X versus Windows --- hell, Windows needs draw just to *run* with 96mb of memory. Even with apps running with multiple toolkits and many open netscape windows, my box runs fine without hitting what little swap I do have.
XFree 4.0.x (Especially 4.0.1) are extremely fast, as well.
Also, if X happens to still run slowly, why not renice it to -10 or -15?
X does need work on a few things, such as:
* Fonts -- Ick, but useable * Alpha channel support -- Very nice, and possible. * More 3d acceleration (more dri drivers) * Anitaliased fonts (see 1, 2)
But that doesn't mean that we should throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak, and ditch X. I've heard that the 1.x kernels had abdysmal IDE support and speeds --- Imagine if people had abandoned that and ignored everything else that was good in it?
Besides, X has many other goodies, such as a nice authentication protocol, support for being able to easily switch to/from virtual consoles, XKB/xmodmap for keyboard layout, X resources [Yes, I like them], window managers, window properties, a cleaner API (XLib), etc. etc. etc.
Yes, X is old, but why would it still be around after so long if it wasn't good?
Don't be surprised. X windows, and therefore anything that runs on top of it, is a crock of shit. It's the slowest, worst, most bloated piece of crap you can imagine.
Moreso than Windows? Pfft. X is actually well-designed IMO, (except for the fonts), and, with XFreee 4.0.x, it's fast as well.
Not to mention I would gladly sacrifice 10% of the speed to gain 90% more stability.
The problem is that it would be rather difficult to do with OpenGL --- D3D *does* give more detailed capabiliy information than OpenGL does (which, IMO, is a good thing, which forces vendors to implement the whole thing instead of forcing coders to put an if around every call).
I disagree with you even on that. MacOS X is merely an incrimental improvment. True, it combines the ease of use of the previous MacOS and NeXT with the power of the underlying BSD, *but* it doesn't improve any of the other ones signifiginately. Aqua is beautiful, yes, but by no means revolutionary. The concept of providing for old applications via a wrapper is not now either, c.f. Mac's old 68k emulation layer, or Wine. It's a great application of technology, yes, but nothing new inof itself.
So Classic is like Wine for MacOS? If this is the case, would it be possible, at some point in the future, for Apple to release the source and/or port it to Linux, so as to run MacOS (9, at least) apps from LinuxPPC?
Again, I ask: Why not just dump it in a subduction zone (Where one continent goes under another)? The earth's core is radioactive anyway, and there is absolutely no threat of it leaking into topsoil if it molten magma sevearl kilometers beneath the surface.
On the other hand, if we were to start "importing" massive amounts of carbon from an extraterrestrial source (like the moon), and introduce it to our biosphere, the results could get interesting. Hydrogen is not carbon. The article about using HYDROGEN on the moon for fusion, not carbon. The moon has no carbon.
There is no reason you couldn't design a virus to do exactly that --- after all, that is what they do naturally, only the genes they insert tend to cause the virus to replicate and kill the host cell. This need not be the case.
Slashdot Mirror
No, that would be a masochist.
Motif is bloated, difficult to program for, expensive, and ugly. .Xdefaults
-Os, man, LessTif,
Why do you say that?
At the display level, all things are bitmaps anyay. So?
X was designed with extensions in mind in the first place.
Why not use the X protocol, then, and compile XFree for Windows? (Yes, it's possible using Cygwin and DX, IIRC)
Have you actually set an X resource in your life? Motif can be *made* to look nice. Simply because it isn't by default, like GTK+ is, doesn't mean that it is crap.
I would *prefer* working with GTK+ or Qt to working with Motif, but Motif is by no means inferior, and, in some ways, is superior. I *like* X resources!
Uhm, X cannot handle modern displays? It works fine at 1280x1024x32 (at least until my monitor stops working --- crappy 15"). It supports glx and dri, which provide 3d acceleration capabilities.
As for fonts....
X supports most font types imaginable. Either X or its font servers (XFree 4.0.1 supports these fonts natively) support various Adobe types, e.g. Type1, bitmap fonts, speedo fonts, *and* the usual truetype fonts.
I hate logical font descriptors, and that is why I say X needs work on fonts, but otherwise it is fine.
Stop spreading this myth!
I trust nothing from the unix-haters handbook. By defined, they cannot provide an objective evaluation! Gah!
Hear hear! I like X as well --- It, in the words of its own documentation, enforced mechanism, not policy, which, IMO, is a *good* thing. I happen to hate Motif, but at least I can use a GTK or Qt, or perhaps Athena or XForms based app instead. Flexability is critically important.
Besides, I wish all the people who continually while that "X is slow" and "X is bloated" to actually look at the speed and memory consumption of X versus Windows --- hell, Windows needs draw just to *run* with 96mb of memory. Even with apps running with multiple toolkits and many open netscape windows, my box runs fine without hitting what little swap I do have.
XFree 4.0.x (Especially 4.0.1) are extremely fast, as well.
Also, if X happens to still run slowly, why not renice it to -10 or -15?
X does need work on a few things, such as:
* Fonts -- Ick, but useable
* Alpha channel support -- Very nice, and possible.
* More 3d acceleration (more dri drivers)
* Anitaliased fonts (see 1, 2)
But that doesn't mean that we should throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak, and ditch X. I've heard that the 1.x kernels had abdysmal IDE support and speeds --- Imagine if people had abandoned that and ignored everything else that was good in it?
Besides, X has many other goodies, such as a nice authentication protocol, support for being able to easily switch to/from virtual consoles, XKB/xmodmap for keyboard layout, X resources [Yes, I like them], window managers, window properties, a cleaner API (XLib), etc. etc. etc.
Yes, X is old, but why would it still be around after so long if it wasn't good?
Don't be surprised. X windows, and therefore anything that runs on top of it, is a crock of shit. It's the slowest, worst, most bloated
piece of crap you can imagine.
Moreso than Windows? Pfft. X is actually well-designed IMO, (except for the fonts), and, with XFreee 4.0.x, it's fast as well.
Not to mention I would gladly sacrifice 10% of the speed to gain 90% more stability.
I use LaTeX. I know of nothing I cannot do better with it than I can with a traditional word processor.
Yay! Another thing to microwave!
If I had moderator points, I would give this +1000, insightful.
Do you have a copy? That is one of the funniest things I've heard.
oooops. Remind me not to read /. after the coffee has worn off. :)
The problem is that it would be rather difficult to do with OpenGL --- D3D *does* give more detailed capabiliy information than OpenGL does (which, IMO, is a good thing, which forces vendors to implement the whole thing instead of forcing coders to put an if around every call).
Ah, interesting.
I disagree with you even on that. MacOS X is merely an incrimental improvment. True, it combines the ease of use of the previous MacOS and NeXT with the power of the underlying BSD, *but* it doesn't improve any of the other ones signifiginately. Aqua is beautiful, yes, but by no means revolutionary. The concept of providing for old applications via a wrapper is not now either, c.f. Mac's old 68k emulation layer, or Wine. It's a great application of technology, yes, but nothing new inof itself.
So Classic is like Wine for MacOS? If this is the case, would it be possible, at some point in the future, for Apple to release the source and/or port it to Linux, so as to run MacOS (9, at least) apps from LinuxPPC?
Perhaps this could be hackd with configuration-time options.
Again, I ask: Why not just dump it in a subduction zone (Where one continent goes under another)? The earth's core is radioactive anyway, and there is absolutely no threat of it leaking into topsoil if it molten magma sevearl kilometers beneath the surface.
On the other hand, if we were to start "importing" massive amounts of carbon from an extraterrestrial source (like the moon), and introduce it to our biosphere, the results could get interesting. Hydrogen is not carbon. The article about using HYDROGEN on the moon for fusion, not carbon. The moon has no carbon.
P-B11?
There is no reason you couldn't design a virus to do exactly that --- after all, that is what they do naturally, only the genes they insert tend to cause the virus to replicate and kill the host cell. This need not be the case.
Yes, but then they *still* lose the copyright protection!