Re:So when do we get its successor?
on
X Power Tools
·
· Score: 1
That seems to explain why you're X environment is more responsive than Windows is.
It makes sense that a barebones environment like the one you described will generate a lot less load on the windowing system than the Windows shell would.
Re:So when do we get its successor?
on
X Power Tools
·
· Score: 1
Sure. When comparing the performance of two windowing systems, both should be equally stressed. Otherwise a comparison would be kind of meaningless.
Re:So when do we get its successor?
on
X Power Tools
·
· Score: 1
Think so? So because I don't know who made a piece of software, I can't possibly know what's wrong with it?
Re:So when do we get its successor?
on
X Power Tools
·
· Score: 1
I don't pretend to possess much in the way of social skills. You're critisism is noted, and for the first one totally valid. So, if you're still reading this jrothwell97, sorry.
That other comment, emphasizing two decades of experience, does remind me a little of an old man ranting. It wasn't meant as an insult though, I was.. well, joking I guess. Seems it didn't work, probably was a lousy way to start a reply with, so sorry to you too.
About my posts being opinions, well, yeah, of course they are. But I did try to be constructive in this discussion, even though the things you quoted say otherwise.
Well, guess I broke it. Was fun while it lasted though.
Re:So when do we get its successor?
on
X Power Tools
·
· Score: 1
Sorry, but that totally reads like 'get of my lawn'. My old man thought GEM was plenty responsive too...
I assume you actually used DECWindows on that DECStation, and doesn't SUN have it's own implementation of X too? I think it's safe to assume both Digital and SUN made some effort to make their windowing systems responsive - maybe with a lightweight window manager, maybe by cutting back on features, I don't know.
After using computers for such a long time as it seems you have, I think it's pretty natural to become more tolerant concerning responsiveness. I experienced that when I was still using my 233 MHz AMD in 2003 - which still seemed to be an okay computer even though everyone else was using >1GHz CPUs. Since then my upgrade cycles got shorter though..
Re:So when do we get its successor?
on
X Power Tools
·
· Score: 1
That's not true. Locally, X communicates through unix domain sockets which aren't any slower than any other form of interprocess communication. I wasn't talking about the network performance - that of course is negligible when there's no real network, when all communication is local.
What I meant was the whole layer of code that provide this network transparency, which every X event must pass through no matter what.
Also not true. A light weight window manager (I used icewm at the time) has always out performed XP on any hardware I've tried. You're probably conflating GUI toolkit bloat (which is a real problem) with the performance of the X server.
It's kind of hard to compare windowing systems when you use something as lightweight as IceWM on one and the windows shell on the other. Assuming things like IceWM generate a fewer events, I tried to push both equally by using GNOME.
Maybe I'm naive, but considering the history of pretty much every country on my continent, and most countries on neighboring continents - actually most countries worldwide - I think they all had more than their share of war and won't be too eager to be part of another one for at least a few generations to come. Hopefully for a lot of generations to come.
But even if that's being naive, I prefer looking at things that way - not that I'm going to deliberately close my eyes towards a real threat, I'm just hesitant in acknowledging a perceived threat as a real one.
Constant fear won't do anyone any good.
Re:So when do we get its successor?
on
X Power Tools
·
· Score: 1
No idea who they are.
It's kind of a moot point anyways, like I said, today's computers are so fast the overhead of X probably doesn't matter. It's just that I spent some time in 2000 looking at what X events come up during a normal session - there were a lot. A lot more than there were on Windows IIRC.
Though the tone of your post suggests there's some other major bottleneck, besides the network layer - care to share?
Re:So when do we get its successor?
on
X Power Tools
·
· Score: 1
KDE is not a windowing system, neither is GNOME. For KDE kwin and plasma are the windowing systems, for GNOME it's metacity and compiz. <\nitpick>
Or maybe the fact that my country actually makes an effort to get along with other countries...
Re:So when do we get its successor?
on
X Power Tools
·
· Score: 2, Informative
You're pretty new to this, eh?
It's not so obvious anymore on todays multicore, multi-GHz numbercrunchers with gigs of RAM, but X11 is a lot of things, but _not_ speedy. They didn't even try to make it speedy - the network transparency layer (among other things) creates so much overhead it was a pain to use X11 until relatively recently.
When XP was first released its windowing system actually felt more responsive than X11 did on the hardware from that time.
Uh, what you would be getting if the writers were still on strike is a lot worse: Stuff that doesn't need writers. Reality TV.
There's nothing wrong with watching TV, as long as it's selective. As long as you don't spend everyday sitting through whatever the networks feel like airing...
I for one am looking forward to Volume 3 of Heroes.
Sure, that is likely to be perceived as a threat.
But it could be argued that this threat arose from another war - the Cold War. So, we're pretty much back to square one.
Can't say I have a solution, but the whole military-industrial thing is more likely to increase than to decrease the overall threat to security. Which is why I feel less people should be taking a part in it.
Not everyone agrees with you. I sure hope so. If that were the case, that would mean a significant portion of the population would willingly be part of taking this whole killing and dying thing. That would suck.
Some of us sleep much better at night knowing there are people with "sharp pointy things that go bang" standing watch while we sleep. Interesting. I don't feel threatened and have no need for an army to defend me. I'd feel even safer with less trained-to-kill people around.
Ex-military guys make great IT people. They're very trainable, and follow instructions without all the BS attitude. I can see how that would be the case. If that's what you're looking for, looking for ex-military people makes sense of course.
Well, the "You go where we tell you to go" and the whole killing and dying thing kind of obliterates all those (perceived) advantages.
Even if this geek squad isn't directly involved with the killing and dying, it's still a part of the whole thing - something not everyone is all that comfortable with.
I don't get it, if they need lots of bandwidth to test their scp acceleration code, why can't they do it over the loopback interface?
Is there some limit to that I'm not aware of?
There were crypto acceleration cards, but I think the market was fairly small. They made sense for sites with lots of https traffic, but nowadays general purpose cpus are blazingly fast compared to back then.
So I guess they disappeared..
A rich person buying a car isn't "stupid" if he/she can afford it. A poor person buying lots of movie tickets when they're on the breadline, is.
Who are you to judge? Poor people usually have hard lifes, and coping with it often make them drink, do drugs, become criminals, etc.
If that particular poor person tries to get the escapism he needs from watching movies, buying those tickets is a very smart move.
I'm pretty sure this technology, if it ever gets marketed, will be sold to professional or advanced amateur photographers.
Who will want DSLR cameras anyway (who wouldn't?).
That quote doesn't say anything about his intentions. It's just a statement that probably made sense to him, a snide remark about the religious systems at the time.
It'd help if you gave a source of course.
Slashdot Mirror
That seems to explain why you're X environment is more responsive than Windows is.
It makes sense that a barebones environment like the one you described will generate a lot less load on the windowing system than the Windows shell would.
Sure. When comparing the performance of two windowing systems, both should be equally stressed. Otherwise a comparison would be kind of meaningless.
Think so? So because I don't know who made a piece of software, I can't possibly know what's wrong with it?
I don't pretend to possess much in the way of social skills. You're critisism is noted, and for the first one totally valid. So, if you're still reading this jrothwell97, sorry.
That other comment, emphasizing two decades of experience, does remind me a little of an old man ranting. It wasn't meant as an insult though, I was.. well, joking I guess. Seems it didn't work, probably was a lousy way to start a reply with, so sorry to you too.
About my posts being opinions, well, yeah, of course they are. But I did try to be constructive in this discussion, even though the things you quoted say otherwise.
Well, guess I broke it. Was fun while it lasted though.
Sorry, but that totally reads like 'get of my lawn'. My old man thought GEM was plenty responsive too...
I assume you actually used DECWindows on that DECStation, and doesn't SUN have it's own implementation of X too? I think it's safe to assume both Digital and SUN made some effort to make their windowing systems responsive - maybe with a lightweight window manager, maybe by cutting back on features, I don't know.
After using computers for such a long time as it seems you have, I think it's pretty natural to become more tolerant concerning responsiveness. I experienced that when I was still using my 233 MHz AMD in 2003 - which still seemed to be an okay computer even though everyone else was using >1GHz CPUs. Since then my upgrade cycles got shorter though..
I wasn't talking about the network performance - that of course is negligible when there's no real network, when all communication is local.
What I meant was the whole layer of code that provide this network transparency, which every X event must pass through no matter what.
Also not true. A light weight window manager (I used icewm at the time) has always out performed XP on any hardware I've tried. You're probably conflating GUI toolkit bloat (which is a real problem) with the performance of the X server.
It's kind of hard to compare windowing systems when you use something as lightweight as IceWM on one and the windows shell on the other. Assuming things like IceWM generate a fewer events, I tried to push both equally by using GNOME.
Maybe I'm naive, but considering the history of pretty much every country on my continent, and most countries on neighboring continents - actually most countries worldwide - I think they all had more than their share of war and won't be too eager to be part of another one for at least a few generations to come. Hopefully for a lot of generations to come.
But even if that's being naive, I prefer looking at things that way - not that I'm going to deliberately close my eyes towards a real threat, I'm just hesitant in acknowledging a perceived threat as a real one.
Constant fear won't do anyone any good.
No idea who they are.
It's kind of a moot point anyways, like I said, today's computers are so fast the overhead of X probably doesn't matter. It's just that I spent some time in 2000 looking at what X events come up during a normal session - there were a lot. A lot more than there were on Windows IIRC.
Though the tone of your post suggests there's some other major bottleneck, besides the network layer - care to share?
KDE is not a windowing system, neither is GNOME.
For KDE kwin and plasma are the windowing systems, for GNOME it's metacity and compiz.
<\nitpick>
Or maybe the fact that my country actually makes an effort to get along with other countries...
You're pretty new to this, eh?
It's not so obvious anymore on todays multicore, multi-GHz numbercrunchers with gigs of RAM, but X11 is a lot of things, but _not_ speedy. They didn't even try to make it speedy - the network transparency layer (among other things) creates so much overhead it was a pain to use X11 until relatively recently.
When XP was first released its windowing system actually felt more responsive than X11 did on the hardware from that time.
Uh, what you would be getting if the writers were still on strike is a lot worse: Stuff that doesn't need writers. Reality TV.
There's nothing wrong with watching TV, as long as it's selective. As long as you don't spend everyday sitting through whatever the networks feel like airing...
I for one am looking forward to Volume 3 of Heroes.
Sure, that is likely to be perceived as a threat.
But it could be argued that this threat arose from another war - the Cold War. So, we're pretty much back to square one.
Can't say I have a solution, but the whole military-industrial thing is more likely to increase than to decrease the overall threat to security. Which is why I feel less people should be taking a part in it.
I sure hope so. If that were the case, that would mean a significant portion of the population would willingly be part of taking this whole killing and dying thing. That would suck.
Some of us sleep much better at night knowing there are people with "sharp pointy things that go bang" standing watch while we sleep.
Interesting. I don't feel threatened and have no need for an army to defend me. I'd feel even safer with less trained-to-kill people around.
Ex-military guys make great IT people. They're very trainable, and follow instructions without all the BS attitude.
I can see how that would be the case. If that's what you're looking for, looking for ex-military people makes sense of course.
Well, the "You go where we tell you to go" and the whole killing and dying thing kind of obliterates all those (perceived) advantages.
Even if this geek squad isn't directly involved with the killing and dying, it's still a part of the whole thing - something not everyone is all that comfortable with.
Might be a typo. My keyboard has the pipe next to the exclamation mark too..
I don't get it, if they need lots of bandwidth to test their scp acceleration code, why can't they do it over the loopback interface?
Is there some limit to that I'm not aware of?
There were crypto acceleration cards, but I think the market was fairly small. They made sense for sites with lots of https traffic, but nowadays general purpose cpus are blazingly fast compared to back then.
So I guess they disappeared..
They're overrated..
...and she's not using it professionally?
Interesting, but few people spend that much money on software without some return of investment.
DNF never had a release date either...
A rich person buying a car isn't "stupid" if he/she can afford it. A poor person buying lots of movie tickets when they're on the breadline, is.
Who are you to judge? Poor people usually have hard lifes, and coping with it often make them drink, do drugs, become criminals, etc.If that particular poor person tries to get the escapism he needs from watching movies, buying those tickets is a very smart move.
I'm pretty sure this technology, if it ever gets marketed, will be sold to professional or advanced amateur photographers.
Who will want DSLR cameras anyway (who wouldn't?).
That quote doesn't say anything about his intentions. It's just a statement that probably made sense to him, a snide remark about the religious systems at the time.
It'd help if you gave a source of course.
That's like saying that while the Internet was made for pedophiles, but it doesn't have to be used this way.