X/X Windows (was Re: Windows 95, what a joke.)

X/X Windows (was Re: Windows 95, what a joke.)

Post by Alistair You » Sat, 04 Nov 1995 04:00:00



   >There is no such thing as X Windows.

   I can't resist.  Yes there is!  It's a GUI for UNIX systems
   which is quite handy.  I'm using it now.  All my windows
   even have little "x"s in the close boxes.

Ouch. Now I can't resist. There is no X Windows. What you are using
(assuming I've got this right, I never could stay awake in UNIX
worshipping, sorry, appreciation class) is a protocol called X for
sending window-system-stuff between different machines (or between the
same machine), a window manager (which may be called anything -
resource-hogging bastard is quite good), and a window manager called
something ending in wm (fvwm, twm, olwm, olvwm, etc.). All three of
these together are called X Windows by people who either don't know
any better (45% of people who use it), and by people who don't care
that pedants think they're wrong, because common usage says they're
right (another 45%, including me). However,
pedants still insist that there is no X Windows.

Hope this helps,

Alistair
--
Alistair Young - Arkane Systems Software Development & PC Consultancy
The opinions above are my company's, because I OWN it! [Team OS/2]

Support the rmgrouping of all silly, unused, or duplicated alt.* groups!

 
 
 

X/X Windows (was Re: Windows 95, what a joke.)

Post by Drew D. Sa » Sun, 05 Nov 1995 04:00:00




(Fletcher Sandbeck) writes:

>    >There is no such thing as X Windows.

>    I can't resist.  Yes there is!  It's a GUI for UNIX systems
>    which is quite handy.  I'm using it now.  All my windows
>    even have little "x"s in the close boxes.

> Ouch. Now I can't resist. There is no X Windows. What you are using
> (assuming I've got this right, I never could stay awake in UNIX
> worshipping, sorry, appreciation class) is a protocol called X for
> sending window-system-stuff between different machines (or between the
> same machine), a window manager (which may be called anything -
> resource-hogging bastard is quite good), and a window manager called
> something ending in wm (fvwm, twm, olwm, olvwm, etc.). All three of
> these together are called X Windows by people who either don't know
> any better (45% of people who use it), and by people who don't care
> that pedants think they're wrong, because common usage says they're
> right (another 45%, including me). However,
> pedants still insist that there is no X Windows.

> Hope this helps,

Actually, for those who believe, there really is no such thing as X
WIndows. It's *X Window*--no "s". If you're gonna talk about it, at least
do it right.

Drew

 
 
 

X/X Windows (was Re: Windows 95, what a joke.)

Post by GarrettZil » Sun, 05 Nov 1995 04:00:00



:    >There is no such thing as X Windows.

:    I can't resist.  Yes there is!  It's a GUI for UNIX systems
:    which is quite handy.  I'm using it now.  All my windows
:    even have little "x"s in the close boxes.

: Ouch. Now I can't resist. There is no X Windows.
: ... called X Windows by people who either don't know
: any better (45% of people who use it), and by people who don't care
: that pedants think they're wrong, because common usage says they're
: right (another 45%, including me). However,
: pedants still insist that there is no X Windows.

The same pedants will get on your case almost every time you use the word
'baud', as well :&>

Cheers,
Garrett
--
Garrett P. Nievin, aging freshman, programmer, pilot, aerospace buff, Linux fan
HERE MEN FROM THE PLANET EARTH               | All opinions stated here are
FIRST SET FOOT UPON THE MOON  JULY 1969, A.D.| probably not shared by anyone,
WE CAME IN PEACE FOR ALL MANKIND.            | least of all my employer.

 
 
 

X/X Windows (was Re: Windows 95, what a joke.)

Post by John Bod » Tue, 07 Nov 1995 04:00:00


alt.folklore.computers trimmed


<snip>

Quote:>Actually, for those who believe, there really is no such thing as X
>WIndows. It's *X Window*--no "s". If you're gonna talk about it, at least
>do it right.

>Drew

To be truly *about it, the correct name is the "X Window System."  Part of
the confusion is that people refer to the actual screen interface as "X
Windows",  when the correct reference should be something like "OpenWindows" or
"VUE".  The X Window System is actually the underlying architecture for the
network and graphic calls.  The actual interfaces are built from the X
libraries and the additional toolkits like Motif and OpenLook.

John Bode

 
 
 

X/X Windows (was Re: Windows 95, what a joke.)

Post by Kazimir Kylhe » Wed, 08 Nov 1995 04:00:00





>> However,
>> pedants still insist that there is no X Windows.

>I thought X was a messaging system for sending windowing-related stuff
>over networks.  Of course, the designers assumed that the networks had
>infinite bandwidth, making their job much easier.  Funny thing:  I don't
>think I could get people to use software from me if I made the same
>assumption.  I guess that is why they don't charge money for X.

>X still sucks, and my modem is up to 28.8K.

Compared to what other windowing system that you are "remoting" through the same
setup? Gotcha.

I bet you have no clue of precisely how efficient or inefficient is the RPC
protocol used by X11 compared to some theoretical model which has equal
capabilities but optimal efficiency.  A client-UI/server-engine application
model does not apply, because it doesn't do distributed graphics.

If you run programs based on some bloated toolkit with 3-D widgets that transfer
50K of raw pixmaps before doing anything, you might experience some mild
discomfort.  You aren't doing that by chance?

I just started an xterm, xedit, xcalc and xfig. They all took from five
to six seconds to start up, and are perfectly usable. The latency of
response to a mouse and keyboard events is about as long as response to a
keypress in a telnet session. Xfig took about 13 seconds to set up.
Hey, I just drew a spline curve with ease!

The response of xfig over 28.8 X is roughly similar to MacDraw on an
LCII.

Quote:>Of course, trying to get the Unix folks to say that X (or telnet or ftp or
>shells or anything else) is actually a part of Unix is a whole 'nother
>matter...

This is in accordance with the Unix quantum mechanics. A program that's
observed to be useful is also necessarily part of the operating system. However,
when it demonstrates bugs or security holes, additional quantum numbers
are introduced which distinguish it from the operating system proper.
--
I have taken all the Gates out of my computer, and it still works!
 
 
 

X/X Windows (was Re: Windows 95, what a joke.)

Post by Ravi Krishna Swa » Wed, 08 Nov 1995 04:00:00





>> However,
>> pedants still insist that there is no X Windows.

>I thought X was a messaging system for sending windowing-related stuff
>over networks.  Of course, the designers assumed that the networks had
>infinite bandwidth, making their job much easier.  Funny thing:  I don't
>think I could get people to use software from me if I made the same
>assumption.  I guess that is why they don't charge money for X.

Maybe the X Consortium believes in open systems.

Quote:>X still sucks, and my modem is up to 28.8K.

Geez, X over ISDN will probably suck.  X wasn't designed to work
over typical phone lines.  I'm running HotJava off of a Sun
SPARC 20 that is five miles away displaying it on my Linux box and
the little NervousText applet seems to display just as quickly
as it does when I'm on a Sun at school running the program locally.

Quote:>Of course, trying to get the Unix folks to say that X (or telnet or ftp or
>shells or anything else) is actually a part of Unix is a whole 'nother
>matter...

Yes because we wouldn't want to lie and say that any of them are a part
since they are all available on other platforms.  The last time I
checked I could get ftp clients and servers, shells, and X on just
about every platform out there even MS-DOS.

Ravi
--
Ravi K. Swamy                http://www4.ncsu.edu/eos/users/r/rkswamy/www/

 
 
 

X/X Windows (was Re: Windows 95, what a joke.)

Post by Kazimir Kylhe » Wed, 08 Nov 1995 04:00:00




Quote:>>X still sucks, and my modem is up to 28.8K.

>Geez, X over ISDN will probably suck.  X wasn't designed to work
>over typical phone lines.  I'm running HotJava off of a Sun
>SPARC 20 that is five miles away displaying it on my Linux box and
>the little NervousText applet seems to display just as quickly
>as it does when I'm on a Sun at school running the program locally.

Hey, I tried xpaint over 28.8. It takes forever to open up an image,
and also to save an image, because these operations transfer the pixmap
between the X server and the X client. Other than that, using xpaint to
actually modify a picture didn't seem all that bandwidth intensive. I was
able to draw using all the graphics primitives, including brushes and
the spraycan, and do cut and paste fairly quickly.

A remoted xterm is faster than a telnet, in terms of keystroke response.

--
I have taken all the Gates out of my computer, and it still works!

 
 
 

X/X Windows (was Re: Windows 95, what a joke.)

Post by Joe Slo » Wed, 08 Nov 1995 04:00:00




Quote:>X still sucks, and my modem is up to 28.8K.

I see the nature of your your problem straight away -
X needs to be run on your local machine. It was not designed to
run over a phone line, although it can be done - painfully.

BTW what do you propose to take it's place?

--
 Joe Sloan                 |    http://dostoevsky.ucr.edu

 Upgrade to Linux95!       |    University of California
~

 
 
 

X/X Windows (was Re: Windows 95, what a joke.)

Post by Little Caes » Wed, 08 Nov 1995 04:00:00




Quote:> I thought X was a messaging system for sending windowing-related stuff
> over networks.  Of course, the designers assumed that the networks had
> infinite bandwidth, making their job much easier.  Funny thing:  I don't
> think I could get people to use software from me if I made the same
> assumption.  I guess that is why they don't charge money for X.

> X still sucks, and my modem is up to 28.8K.

Now, I'm not saying that X isn't BIG in every sense of the word, but
running *any* GUI over a 28.8 phone line is bound to be an exercise in
frustration.

Quote:> Of course, trying to get the Unix folks to say that X (or telnet or ftp or
> shells or anything else) is actually a part of Unix is a whole 'nother
> matter...

I know what you mean, but frankly I wouldn't use unix without it. Sure, I
like having a couple of term windows open, but some things are just easier
the point-and-click way.

--
damir smitlener                  |  


 
 
 

X/X Windows (was Re: Windows 95, what a joke.)

Post by Brian C. Downi » Fri, 10 Nov 1995 04:00:00



: Actually, for those who believe, there really is no such thing as X
: WIndows. It's *X Window*--no "s". If you're gonna talk about it, at least
: do it right.

*siiiiighh*...

ijjski:~% man X
[snip]
       The X Consortium requests that the following names be used
       when referring to this software:

                                   X
                            X Window System
                              X Version 11
                      X Window System, Version 11
                                  X11
[unsnip]

Hmmm... I don't see any mention of "X Window" in there.  I think the
proper way to remember it is this---It isn't a system called "X Windows,"
it's a window system called "X."

If you're gonna talk about it, at least do it the way the X Consortium
wants.  (Besides, X sounds much cooler that X Windows or X Window :)

-Brian
--

     http://www.prairienet.org/~bdowning/      \ dragon out of your calcu-

        http://www.prairienet.org/mrm/           \ him." -- J.R.R. Tolkien

 
 
 

X/X Windows (was Re: Windows 95, what a joke.)

Post by Rob Naccara » Sat, 11 Nov 1995 04:00:00



:    >There is no such thing as X Windows.

:    I can't resist.  Yes there is!  It's a GUI for UNIX systems
:    which is quite handy.  I'm using it now.  All my windows
:    even have little "x"s in the close boxes.

: Ouch. Now I can't resist. There is no X Windows. What you are using
: (assuming I've got this right, I never could stay awake in UNIX
: worshipping, sorry, appreciation class) is a protocol called X for
: sending window-system-stuff between different machines (or between the
: same machine), a window manager (which may be called anything -
: resource-hogging bastard is quite good), and a window manager called
: something ending in wm (fvwm, twm, olwm, olvwm, etc.). All three of
: these together are called X Windows by people who either don't know
: any better (45% of people who use it), and by people who don't care
: that pedants think they're wrong, because common usage says they're
: right (another 45%, including me). However,
: pedants still insist that there is no X Windows.

Hm.  What would you call a windowing system that uses a "protocol called
X for sending window-system-stuff between different machines (or between the
same machine)"??  X or X Window System sounds right to me.

We could call it "The windowing system formerly known as X11R5". Is that
better?
--

Rob Naccarato

 
 
 

X/X Windows (was Re: Windows 95, what a joke.)

Post by Jason Eliso » Mon, 13 Nov 1995 04:00:00


I think what is being debated there is not if X is a windowing system.  It's a
name argument.  It is considered very bad style (by purists) to call X 'X
Windows'.  Why this is so, I don't know.  It is ok to call it X, X11, X11R?, or
The X Windowing System.  But never 'X Windows'.  I had a prof once who would
give a short diatribe on this subject anytime somebody made that mistake.  So
remember everybody, just call it plain old 'X'.
Jason "Using X right now, but certainly not 'X Windows'" Elison

--
"Big Brother is watching."

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6.2
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=rslm
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

 
 
 

X/X Windows (was Re: Windows 95, what a joke.)

Post by Ravi Krishna Swa » Mon, 13 Nov 1995 04:00:00



Quote:>I think what is being debated there is not if X is a windowing system.  It's a
>name argument.  It is considered very bad style (by purists) to call X 'X
>Windows'.  Why this is so, I don't know.  It is ok to call it X, X11, X11R?, or

Because if I make a product and I say the name is Fido then it would
be nice if you called it Fido and not Rover.  Type "man X" and try
find the term "X Windows" in there.  They list four names that they
request you to use.  I could care less if you call it "X Windows" or
not but it is not the name of the product.

Quote:>The X Windowing System.  But never 'X Windows'.  I had a prof once who would
>give a short diatribe on this subject anytime somebody made that mistake.  So

Sounds like a cool guy.

>remember everybody, just call it plain old 'X'.
>Jason "Using X right now, but certainly not 'X Windows'" Elison


Ravi
--
Ravi K. Swamy                http://www4.ncsu.edu/eos/users/r/rkswamy/www/

 
 
 

X/X Windows (was Re: Windows 95, what a joke.)

Post by Jason Eliso » Mon, 13 Nov 1995 04:00:00



>Sounds like a cool guy.

>Ravi
>--
>Ravi K. Swamy                http://www4.ncsu.edu/eos/users/r/rkswamy/www/


He was!  Until then, all I new about UNIX was what I had read in the popular
press (i.e.  "Windows Sources" saying Windows NT will someday kill UNIX), and I
had never even heard of X or Linux.  He was the guy that turned me on to Linux.
Thank God, or I would still be stuck in Bill Gates' world.

--
"Big Brother is watching."

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6.2
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=rslm
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

 
 
 

X/X Windows (was Re: Windows 95, what a joke.)

Post by Warwick Allis » Thu, 16 Nov 1995 04:00:00


Quote:>>remember everybody, just call it plain old 'X'.

Usually, "X11" is required, because "X" can be confused with "foo".

--
Warwick
--

/     * <- Comp Sci Department, McD: http://student.uq.edu.au/~s002434/mcl.html
\_.-._/    Univ. of Queensland, POV: http://student.uq.edu.au/~s002434/pov.html
     v     Brisbane, Australia. ME:  http://student.uq.edu.au/~s002434

 
 
 

1. X-Windows (Was - Re: Windows 95, what a joke)

OK, let's say for the sake of argument that it's not -
What do you offer in it's place?

ms windoze?

(ROTFL!)

--
 Joe Sloan                 |    http://dostoevsky.ucr.edu

 Upgrade to Linux95!       |    University of California
~

2. How to avoid a WWW-Server's send buffering ??

3. X-window software for Windows/Windows 95

4. Announce: X-Designer 7 Motif 2 GUI Builder

5. X-windows in Windows 95 and type writers in X-windows

6. 'Quick File Access' for DAT-tapes on SUN-Unix

7. Windows 95, what a joke.

8. News & Slackware V2

9. Windows 95, what a joke

10. 1Re: Windows 95, what a joke

11. Windows 95, what a joke