Windows people usually whinge about the lack of proper drag-and-drop and non-text cut-and-paste in X or that they don't like the way cut and paste is done (with the middle button). That may be a valid criticism but these problems don't make the X desktop unusable, you just need to work in a slightly different way.
Nice dodge. Justify the faults by working "in a slightly different way." How about just fixing the problem? Those problems make X a less usable desktop than Windows.
My point is that if you are used to either X or Windows you'll have trouble adjusting to the other and that this goes both ways. So if you are an X person KDE/Gnome are very acceptable, yes.
If all you've ever eaten is shit, chances are you'll accept the taste.
If you're actually saying KDE 3.1 is faster and more responsive than Windows XP, you're lying. Heck, I can't even drag icons around on the desktop without the little square outline lagging behind. And yet, Windows on this PC has been speedy since the 98 version.
Because my claim contradicts your minority experience, it is somehow "stupid." Get back to me when, say, it's as easy to install and remove programs on Linux as it is on Windows. If you mention RPM, I will outright laugh. I'm using Gnome right now, and I can't even get the "notification area" to stay the same size. After a new icon appears in it and eventually disappears, the tray stays in its new position instead of reverting back. And the volume icon, for some reason, is a seperate icon and not a part of this tray. Here's a nice one--get back to me when I don't have to recompile my entire kernel after adding a piece of new hardware, unlike Windows where I just plug it in and install a small driver file, and it works flawlessly. Hate Windows or not, you know it's a better desktop experience. It's the reason KDE and GNOME have played catchup all these years instead of innovating on their own.
Actually, you're wrong. I would say it's probably MORE widely used than it's hyped to be.
Than you are hopelessly deluded. People like you hype remote X as if every instance of X in the world is on some corporate or university network using remote apps. You ignore the fact that desktop users outnumber you.
You're also wrong to put words in my mouth and say I know the majority of XFree86 users do not use the feature.
Because you know it's true.
In all actuality, I know dozens who DO use X over the network, and none who do not.
Wow, such empirical evidence. Your Linux buddies use X over the network.
Corporations use it all the time. Home users with more than one machine (like me) use it all the time. Governments and organizations who want to run things off a central server (massively reducing cost and support problems) use it all the time. People who want to use a GUI to administer headless servers use it all the time.
And then there are the thousands upon thousands of normal desktop users who don't use remote X. Next.
Now that I think of it, I know of very very few applications where one WOULDN'T want to use it.
And I know of very, very few applications where a gun WOULDN'T be fired. So what.
One would be a standalone desktop machine. The other would be a headless server where the admin only wants to use a remote console, for anything and everything.
Standalone desktop machines are the norm. Accept it and move on.
You might try to be more polite to the people who are coding you software for free...
They owe me nothing, and I owe them nothing. I didn't ask them to code "my" software for free. If they don't want criticism, they shouldn't ever release anything. I abhor victim mentalities.
Other than that, I really don't know. The thing is, the exact source of these problems are still being worked out. The stuff I told you is really too high level to actually serve as a guide. To really get deeper info that people can change code over, testing and profiling needs to be done to see precisely what the problematic behavior is. Hopefully, it's this sort of testing and profiling that Keith and friends can do over at xwin.org.
Well, here's hoping. Somehow, I'm not optimistic.
Hi there, troll! Glad to see you stopped your "work" long enough to spread your verbal feces across the comments here.
Wow, an Anonymous Coward called one of my Slashdot posts the unoriginal and intellectually lazy "verbal feces."
No one says that X should be centered around network transparency, but it's something that -is- used quite a bit now (particularly in the arena of computer labs and corporate use, diskless workstations/terminals, and so on).
X is centered around network transparency. That much is obvious. Remote X is not as widely used as it is endlessly hyped to be.
Sure, less emphasis should be placed on it, and it could definitely be made more efficient, but there's not much point in -removing- flexibility from the system rather than adding to it.
Like most X defenders, you give in and admit there are flaws, but decide it's too much work to fix them. And so the stagnation continues. Thanks for playing.
Yes, it sucks. KDE is worse. Windows XP is light years ahead in the desktop department, and I don't care who gets their anti-Microsoft-anything panties in a ruffle over my saying so.
Wow, what a load of self-important bullshit. This may surprise you, but scrapping years of work and 17 million lines of code because Overly Critical Guy isn't happy with KDE isn't always the best course of action.
Of course it is. 17 million lines of code, including a 20+ year old xlib and loads of legacy cruft that is so difficult and daunting to sift through, no wonder X development is stagnating. You may not like to hear such "self-important bullshit," so go back and put your head in that hole in the ground.
You say that asking "where's your project?" is pointless, but you couldn't be more wrong.
No, I couldn't be more right. People like you think nobody can criticize anything unless they've attempted and successfully completed an equivalent of their own. Think about how silly that is. I would feel sorry for Ebert and Roeper, and anyone who criticizes a band's music, and so forth.
The point of it is that you have no idea what kind of investment there is in X11, nor what the impact would be of just throwing it out to make something that clones GDI or Aqua.
How much has been invested in it doesn't matter. If people still want it, they can continue using XFree86. As if it would be going away.
You don't know how many people throwing out the old code would anger, you just know that it would make you happy.
You are right. We don't code for progress; we code to play emotional tampon to over-sensitive developers who old code can't be removed lest they--heaven forbid--get angry over it.
Maybe X isn't "there" yet, for you. That's fine, it's not "there" for a lot of people.
Lots and lots.
Hopefully it will get there at some point; ideally by intelligently moving forward without breaking what's already there more than necessary.
Doesn't seem to be moving forward at all. 10 years to get finally something like RandR? Come on. That's just a really obvious example.
It'd be really nifty if X could, eventually, be the all things to all people that everyone wants it to be.
Sure would. So lets throw out what doesn't work and start over.
What you need to understand is that you get there by starting at a certain point and then moving to fill in what you're missing. You don't get there by throwing everything away and starting over from somewhere completely different each time a vocal new user throws a hissy fit.
You don't seem to understand that a lot of the fundamentals of X are holding it back. Hence the idea of starting over. Keep what works, but redo what doesn't. This is not a hard concept to grasp, but X defenders seem to take it personally. No matter; they can stay with XFree86 forever for all I care.
Correction - remote X isn't widely used IN PEOPLE'S HOMES. Get that through your thick cranial plate, neanderthal. Just because a moron like you thinks hi s "pictures" are too slow doesn't mean that there shouldn't be any standards, that features are useless.
Wow, an overly aggressive Anonymous Coward. I'm quivering.
Remote X isn't widely used in the business world, either. Get a job and find out.
I love it when you uninformed shits come out of the woodwork in situations like these.
You seem to still be hiding in the woodwork behind an anonymous name.
People who are ignorant of the big picture, of other people's issues, of the real facts. But hey, why bother with the real facts when you can just make them up?
I'm not ignorant of the big picture. It appears you are, and don't like it when someone like me comes along and tells it like it is. Remote X is not as widely used as it is endlessly hyped to be.
Had Microsoft gone with a standard (but modernized and well designed) monolithic system such as Linux, they would have had stability AND performance from the outset. This is why the Linux kernel is so far ahead of Windows today, with support for a myriad of platform support, the ability to hot swap software drivers and devices, and a development pace that puts Redmond's best to shame.
You are right. The need to recompile the entire kernel whenever I install a new piece of hardware is indeed a great advantage over Windows, where I just download a small driver and install, often times never even needing a reboot. Maybe one of these days, Linux will also figure out what its priority and scheduler architectures are, which will also be a huge advantage, I'm sure.
There should be a test in logic and reasoning for Slashdot posters as well.
I'm well aware of Windows' architecture. My obvious point was that there are multiple window managers, multiple libraries, multiple desktop environments, and multiple daemons for X, and I have to manage them all. They all conflict, and they all are substandard. Instead of one seamless implementation, I have to deal with dozens of them, and none of the work together correctly.
Has there been any attempt by the "major players" in X development to establish technical guidelines for the toolkit and window manager developers to follow? Even just to issue the sorts of advice you gave? I looked and could find nothing; perhaps I didn't look hard enough. Honestly, we have to use these polished turds everyday, and no matter how nice X apparently is, GNOME is slow for me. At the least, there could be more active involvement in making these wankers code things right, as good as the work they've done so far might be.
Remove this ability, and you remove a huge reason for using unix/linux on the desktop in the first place.
I figure a much better "huge reason" would be to get away from the proprietary world of Windows and to make an even better system so that I can get my damned work done better. But what do I know? Let's center all of X around a capability the vast majority of computer users would never need or use.
Cue the personal experience with remote X posts and the "X is not slow because of network transparency" posts.
No, nobody wants to rewrite X because writing an X-Server is a freaking shitload of work and in every piece of software there are large portions of code which can be reused.
I didn't say otherwise.
The process of developing is "see problem -> fix problem without causing any new ones", not "see problem -> write a complete new software -> see a quadrillion new problems -> have to handle them first for years -> forget what you were intending to fix at the first place"
XFree86 hasn't been following the "process of developing" then. Sometimes there are so many problems, it's better to start over because the old product is inadequate anyway. Reuse what you can.
xwin is a fork, not a rewrite, and this is good. And please remember that the fork is necessary not for technical reasons but because of the old team refusing to improve their own software!
Don't forget that it's a freakin' buttload of work to do!
If people can write entire open source 3D engines, raytracers, and compilers, I guess I just figure there are those who could at least make the attempt. There are some smart fawkers out there. It's a shot in the dark, I know.
X has been around for decades now... working to replace it isn't going to happen overnight, or probably even over the course of a year. Just look at Berlin (or whatever it's called now, I forget). It's been in the works for as long as I can remember, and as far as I know, the user base isn't exactly noteworthy.
Agreed.
Replacing X is like abandoning the Earth to terraform Mars just because cleaning up the Earth is too much work....
X is not as precious as an earth. Replacing X would be more like abandoning a smoke-filled factory with endless rooms and machinery added onto it at odd angles with difficult procedures to follow, making it very hard to work there or learn how in the first place. Just start over clean and fresh with new ideas.
I know this fork isn't going to attempt to entirely replace X. I wish it would, though, with Keith leading the charge.
Wow, you use it to keep your e-mail synced. That must mean everyone uses it, and so despite the fact that "yes, X has some issues," the fact that it is remotely capable justifies it.
Remote X is still not as widely used as it is endlessly hyped to be. You and I both know the majority of XFree86 users do not use that feature.
"Evolving" in this case seems to be endlessly adding extension after extension to the point that the extension protocol has become much more essential than the original protocol itself.
I see no problem with moving to a more monolithic feel for integration and performance benefits. I know that's an unpopular opinion around here. Custom window managers, theming, and so forth would still be possible (you mention Windows, and Windows XP implements this and can be exploited with such programs as StyleXP). Right now, X is a massive bitch to develop for. If for that reason alone, it's my apparently radical opinion that large chunks of it should be re-evaluated.
Look at it this way. X11 was designed for older days and older hardware. Even Microsoft is trying to replace its aging Windows library with entirely.NET applications, as well as pumping windowing graphics through 3D accelerated polygons now. Those kinds of things are features I would like to have in a free, open source Linux desktop. I'm sick and tired of clicking menus and have small but noticable bits of lag, window trails when dragging around, and insanely stupid taskbars, and then realizing even Windows 3.11 provided a snappier and more smoothly consistent interface.
There's a point where you realize that running dozens of apps beginning with "G" or "K" or "x," all with different looks, consistencies, and oddities (to this day, I will never get over the fact that Xine's open dialog is labeled "://" and the tooltip displays "MRL browser"...can't just say "Open"?) is a shambled mess. Choice is good, but sometimes you have to call things like they are and realize consistency and integration is important too. Windows is seen as the ultimate in forced and unnecessary integration, and so Linux has been pushed as far away from that as possible and conceptualized into this entire idealist mindset. I wish it would retain the middle-ground and just do what works best. Heck, that's what Linus does (i.e., BitKeeper).
I'm trying to be constructively critical here, though I realize I may not be helping anything. But at least I really want Linux to succeed in this area. Offering my opinions is the only way I feel like I can help. Take them or leave them.
Slashdot Mirror
Windows people usually whinge about the lack of proper drag-and-drop and non-text cut-and-paste in X or that they don't like the way cut and paste is done (with the middle button). That may be a valid criticism but these problems don't make the X desktop unusable, you just need to work in a slightly different way.
Nice dodge. Justify the faults by working "in a slightly different way." How about just fixing the problem? Those problems make X a less usable desktop than Windows.
My point is that if you are used to either X or Windows you'll have trouble adjusting to the other and that this goes both ways. So if you are an X person KDE/Gnome are very acceptable, yes.
If all you've ever eaten is shit, chances are you'll accept the taste.
If you're actually saying KDE 3.1 is faster and more responsive than Windows XP, you're lying. Heck, I can't even drag icons around on the desktop without the little square outline lagging behind. And yet, Windows on this PC has been speedy since the 98 version.
Because my claim contradicts your minority experience, it is somehow "stupid." Get back to me when, say, it's as easy to install and remove programs on Linux as it is on Windows. If you mention RPM, I will outright laugh. I'm using Gnome right now, and I can't even get the "notification area" to stay the same size. After a new icon appears in it and eventually disappears, the tray stays in its new position instead of reverting back. And the volume icon, for some reason, is a seperate icon and not a part of this tray. Here's a nice one--get back to me when I don't have to recompile my entire kernel after adding a piece of new hardware, unlike Windows where I just plug it in and install a small driver file, and it works flawlessly. Hate Windows or not, you know it's a better desktop experience. It's the reason KDE and GNOME have played catchup all these years instead of innovating on their own.
Next.
Actually, you're wrong. I would say it's probably MORE widely used than it's hyped to be.
Than you are hopelessly deluded. People like you hype remote X as if every instance of X in the world is on some corporate or university network using remote apps. You ignore the fact that desktop users outnumber you.
You're also wrong to put words in my mouth and say I know the majority of XFree86 users do not use the feature.
Because you know it's true.
In all actuality, I know dozens who DO use X over the network, and none who do not.
Wow, such empirical evidence. Your Linux buddies use X over the network.
Corporations use it all the time. Home users with more than one machine (like me) use it all the time. Governments and organizations who want to run things off a central server (massively reducing cost and support problems) use it all the time. People who want to use a GUI to administer headless servers use it all the time.
And then there are the thousands upon thousands of normal desktop users who don't use remote X. Next.
Now that I think of it, I know of very very few applications where one WOULDN'T want to use it.
And I know of very, very few applications where a gun WOULDN'T be fired. So what.
One would be a standalone desktop machine. The other would be a headless server where the admin only wants to use a remote console, for anything and everything.
Standalone desktop machines are the norm. Accept it and move on.
Strike a nerve?
Wow, that's amazing.
Remote X is still not as widely used as it is endlessly hyped to be. You know it's true.
You might try to be more polite to the people who are coding you software for free... They owe me nothing, and I owe them nothing. I didn't ask them to code "my" software for free. If they don't want criticism, they shouldn't ever release anything. I abhor victim mentalities. Other than that, I really don't know. The thing is, the exact source of these problems are still being worked out. The stuff I told you is really too high level to actually serve as a guide. To really get deeper info that people can change code over, testing and profiling needs to be done to see precisely what the problematic behavior is. Hopefully, it's this sort of testing and profiling that Keith and friends can do over at xwin.org. Well, here's hoping. Somehow, I'm not optimistic.
Hi there, troll! Glad to see you stopped your "work" long enough to spread your verbal feces across the comments here.
Wow, an Anonymous Coward called one of my Slashdot posts the unoriginal and intellectually lazy "verbal feces."
No one says that X should be centered around network transparency, but it's something that -is- used quite a bit now (particularly in the arena of computer labs and corporate use, diskless workstations/terminals, and so on).
X is centered around network transparency. That much is obvious. Remote X is not as widely used as it is endlessly hyped to be.
Sure, less emphasis should be placed on it, and it could definitely be made more efficient, but there's not much point in -removing- flexibility from the system rather than adding to it.
Like most X defenders, you give in and admit there are flaws, but decide it's too much work to fix them. And so the stagnation continues. Thanks for playing.
I'm running the latest Gnome as I type this.
Yes, it sucks. KDE is worse. Windows XP is light years ahead in the desktop department, and I don't care who gets their anti-Microsoft-anything panties in a ruffle over my saying so.
Wow, what a load of self-important bullshit. This may surprise you, but scrapping years of work and 17 million lines of code because Overly Critical Guy isn't happy with KDE isn't always the best course of action.
Of course it is. 17 million lines of code, including a 20+ year old xlib and loads of legacy cruft that is so difficult and daunting to sift through, no wonder X development is stagnating. You may not like to hear such "self-important bullshit," so go back and put your head in that hole in the ground.
You say that asking "where's your project?" is pointless, but you couldn't be more wrong.
No, I couldn't be more right. People like you think nobody can criticize anything unless they've attempted and successfully completed an equivalent of their own. Think about how silly that is. I would feel sorry for Ebert and Roeper, and anyone who criticizes a band's music, and so forth.
The point of it is that you have no idea what kind of investment there is in X11, nor what the impact would be of just throwing it out to make something that clones GDI or Aqua.
How much has been invested in it doesn't matter. If people still want it, they can continue using XFree86. As if it would be going away.
You don't know how many people throwing out the old code would anger, you just know that it would make you happy.
You are right. We don't code for progress; we code to play emotional tampon to over-sensitive developers who old code can't be removed lest they--heaven forbid--get angry over it.
Maybe X isn't "there" yet, for you. That's fine, it's not "there" for a lot of people.
Lots and lots.
Hopefully it will get there at some point; ideally by intelligently moving forward without breaking what's already there more than necessary.
Doesn't seem to be moving forward at all. 10 years to get finally something like RandR? Come on. That's just a really obvious example.
It'd be really nifty if X could, eventually, be the all things to all people that everyone wants it to be.
Sure would. So lets throw out what doesn't work and start over.
What you need to understand is that you get there by starting at a certain point and then moving to fill in what you're missing. You don't get there by throwing everything away and starting over from somewhere completely different each time a vocal new user throws a hissy fit.
You don't seem to understand that a lot of the fundamentals of X are holding it back. Hence the idea of starting over. Keep what works, but redo what doesn't. This is not a hard concept to grasp, but X defenders seem to take it personally. No matter; they can stay with XFree86 forever for all I care.
BeOS, Mac OS X, and more didn't take 10 years to make. And they have entire new kernels along with them.
I'm just telling people what Linux needs to gain any desktop ground.
Correction - remote X isn't widely used IN PEOPLE'S HOMES. Get that through your thick cranial plate, neanderthal. Just because a moron like you thinks hi s "pictures" are too slow doesn't mean that there shouldn't be any standards, that features are useless.
Wow, an overly aggressive Anonymous Coward. I'm quivering.
Remote X isn't widely used in the business world, either. Get a job and find out.
I love it when you uninformed shits come out of the woodwork in situations like these.
You seem to still be hiding in the woodwork behind an anonymous name.
People who are ignorant of the big picture, of other people's issues, of the real facts. But hey, why bother with the real facts when you can just make them up?
I'm not ignorant of the big picture. It appears you are, and don't like it when someone like me comes along and tells it like it is. Remote X is not as widely used as it is endlessly hyped to be.
Had Microsoft gone with a standard (but modernized and well designed) monolithic system such as Linux, they would have had stability AND performance from the outset. This is why the Linux kernel is so far ahead of Windows today, with support for a myriad of platform support, the ability to hot swap software drivers and devices, and a development pace that puts Redmond's best to shame.
You are right. The need to recompile the entire kernel whenever I install a new piece of hardware is indeed a great advantage over Windows, where I just download a small driver and install, often times never even needing a reboot. Maybe one of these days, Linux will also figure out what its priority and scheduler architectures are, which will also be a huge advantage, I'm sure.
There should be a test in logic and reasoning for Slashdot posters as well.
I'm well aware of Windows' architecture. My obvious point was that there are multiple window managers, multiple libraries, multiple desktop environments, and multiple daemons for X, and I have to manage them all. They all conflict, and they all are substandard. Instead of one seamless implementation, I have to deal with dozens of them, and none of the work together correctly.
Next.
Obviously, I'm talking about actually developing X. 'tis the bitch.
Has there been any attempt by the "major players" in X development to establish technical guidelines for the toolkit and window manager developers to follow? Even just to issue the sorts of advice you gave? I looked and could find nothing; perhaps I didn't look hard enough. Honestly, we have to use these polished turds everyday, and no matter how nice X apparently is, GNOME is slow for me. At the least, there could be more active involvement in making these wankers code things right, as good as the work they've done so far might be.
X users recompile the linux kernel with 'X tuning'? Unlikely.
Haven't been following kernel development lately, have you?
Ever tried developing for X? It's a huge, towering bitch that looks like an inside-out Jabba The Hutt.
When there are kernel patches written specifically to speed up X's lag, there's a problem.
Remove this ability, and you remove a huge reason for using unix/linux on the desktop in the first place.
I figure a much better "huge reason" would be to get away from the proprietary world of Windows and to make an even better system so that I can get my damned work done better. But what do I know? Let's center all of X around a capability the vast majority of computer users would never need or use.
Cue the personal experience with remote X posts and the "X is not slow because of network transparency" posts.
No, nobody wants to rewrite X because writing an X-Server is a freaking shitload of work and in every piece of software there are large portions of code which can be reused.
I didn't say otherwise.
The process of developing is "see problem -> fix problem without causing any new ones", not "see problem -> write a complete new software -> see a quadrillion new problems -> have to handle them first for years -> forget what you were intending to fix at the first place"
XFree86 hasn't been following the "process of developing" then. Sometimes there are so many problems, it's better to start over because the old product is inadequate anyway. Reuse what you can.
xwin is a fork, not a rewrite, and this is good. And please remember that the fork is necessary not for technical reasons but because of the old team refusing to improve their own software!
I know. I'm just a hopeful person.
Don't forget that it's a freakin' buttload of work to do!
If people can write entire open source 3D engines, raytracers, and compilers, I guess I just figure there are those who could at least make the attempt. There are some smart fawkers out there. It's a shot in the dark, I know.
X has been around for decades now... working to replace it isn't going to happen overnight, or probably even over the course of a year. Just look at Berlin (or whatever it's called now, I forget). It's been in the works for as long as I can remember, and as far as I know, the user base isn't exactly noteworthy.
Agreed.
Replacing X is like abandoning the Earth to terraform Mars just because cleaning up the Earth is too much work....
X is not as precious as an earth. Replacing X would be more like abandoning a smoke-filled factory with endless rooms and machinery added onto it at odd angles with difficult procedures to follow, making it very hard to work there or learn how in the first place. Just start over clean and fresh with new ideas.
I know this fork isn't going to attempt to entirely replace X. I wish it would, though, with Keith leading the charge.
I felt the majority would better remember it from Clerks than John Irving.
Wow, you use it to keep your e-mail synced. That must mean everyone uses it, and so despite the fact that "yes, X has some issues," the fact that it is remotely capable justifies it.
Remote X is still not as widely used as it is endlessly hyped to be. You and I both know the majority of XFree86 users do not use that feature.
"Evolving" in this case seems to be endlessly adding extension after extension to the point that the extension protocol has become much more essential than the original protocol itself.
.NET applications, as well as pumping windowing graphics through 3D accelerated polygons now. Those kinds of things are features I would like to have in a free, open source Linux desktop. I'm sick and tired of clicking menus and have small but noticable bits of lag, window trails when dragging around, and insanely stupid taskbars, and then realizing even Windows 3.11 provided a snappier and more smoothly consistent interface.
I see no problem with moving to a more monolithic feel for integration and performance benefits. I know that's an unpopular opinion around here. Custom window managers, theming, and so forth would still be possible (you mention Windows, and Windows XP implements this and can be exploited with such programs as StyleXP). Right now, X is a massive bitch to develop for. If for that reason alone, it's my apparently radical opinion that large chunks of it should be re-evaluated.
Look at it this way. X11 was designed for older days and older hardware. Even Microsoft is trying to replace its aging Windows library with entirely
There's a point where you realize that running dozens of apps beginning with "G" or "K" or "x," all with different looks, consistencies, and oddities (to this day, I will never get over the fact that Xine's open dialog is labeled "://" and the tooltip displays "MRL browser"...can't just say "Open"?) is a shambled mess. Choice is good, but sometimes you have to call things like they are and realize consistency and integration is important too. Windows is seen as the ultimate in forced and unnecessary integration, and so Linux has been pushed as far away from that as possible and conceptualized into this entire idealist mindset. I wish it would retain the middle-ground and just do what works best. Heck, that's what Linus does (i.e., BitKeeper).
I'm trying to be constructively critical here, though I realize I may not be helping anything. But at least I really want Linux to succeed in this area. Offering my opinions is the only way I feel like I can help. Take them or leave them.
In short, this "X is slow because of network transparency" is wrong in multiple ways.
/ ne t.html
http://keithp.com/~keithp/talks/usenix2003/html