Very Computer

by **bigbin** » Wed, 07 Feb 2001 15:14:21

I am very pissed off. I like Linux and Unix. I have been studying the
works of Linux from his earlier versions of linux and it is very good
modification of the minix system. The author of Minix actual argues
that a microkernel based is more efficient but linux still is more
powerful. Anyway, with all that said, Linux the Os is Cool. What is
it missing, a GUI that is worthy something. And, I have been trying x-
windows and I just quit because I just found out how crappy the system
is and a waste of my time. I would rather have more fun writing an
alternative and wonder if someone has(I think I will actually).
Because X-windows is just too bothersome. Does anybody else agree?

Berlin Brown

This guy agrees with me.
http://catalog.com/hopkins/unix-haters/x-windows/disaster.html

--
"...yes darling, computers are people too..."
bama.ua.edu/~brown084

Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

by **yt..** » Wed, 07 Feb 2001 15:29:57

> I am very pissed off. I like Linux and Unix. I have been studying the
> works of Linux from his earlier versions of linux and it is very good
> modification of the minix system. The author of Minix actual argues
> that a microkernel based is more efficient but linux still is more
> powerful. Anyway, with all that said, Linux the Os is Cool. What is
> it missing, a GUI that is worthy something. And, I have been trying x-
> windows and I just quit because I just found out how crappy the system
> is and a waste of my time. I would rather have more fun writing an
> alternative and wonder if someone has(I think I will actually).
> Because X-windows is just too bothersome. Does anybody else agree?

No one else agrees.

You havent even said exactly what your problem is with it.

-----.

by **Robert Morell** » Wed, 07 Feb 2001 14:59:49

Quote:> I am very pissed off. I like Linux and Unix. I have been studying the
> works of Linux from his earlier versions of linux and it is very good
> modification of the minix system. The author of Minix actual argues
> that a microkernel based is more efficient but linux still is more
> powerful. Anyway, with all that said, Linux the Os is Cool. What is it
> missing, a GUI that is worthy something. And, I have been trying x-
> windows and I just quit because I just found out how crappy the system
> is and a waste of my time. I would rather have more fun writing an
> alternative and wonder if someone has(I think I will actually). Because
> X-windows is just too bothersome. Does anybody else agree?

I do agree. You might want to have a look at

http://www.xfree86.org/~keithp/talks/usenix2000/render.html

which explains the historical context in which the highly limited
X Window system was created, and laments the 13 years of
stagnation that have left us in the technological hole we're now in.

Many Linux/Unix users live in denial about how poor Linux
technologies like X Window are. This is very unfortunate because
it contributes to the kind of extreme stagnation that those of us
who'd like something better must suffer through. Sadly, your
posting here will probably only generate some flames.

> This guy agrees with me.
> http://catalog.com/hopkins/unix-haters/x-windows/disaster.html

> --
> "...yes darling, computers are people too..."
> bama.ua.edu/~brown084

> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/

by **J Sloa** » Wed, 07 Feb 2001 16:12:11

> I am very pissed off. I like Linux and Unix. I have been studying the
> works of Linux from his earlier versions of linux and it is very good
> modification of the minix system.

Actually there is no minix code at all in Linux. The only
part of minix ever used was the filesystem, way back in
the very beginning, and that was soon replaced.

Linus used Maurice J Bach, "The Design of the Unix
Operating System" when designing Linux.

Quote:> The author of Minix actual argues
> that a microkernel based is more efficient but linux still is more
> powerful.

The argument between Linus and Tannenbaum is legendary.

Quote:> Anyway, with all that said, Linux the Os is Cool. What is
> it missing, a GUI that is worthy something.

Gee, I really like Helix gnome - what's your beef with it?

Quote:> And, I have been trying x-
> windows and I just quit because I just found out how crappy the system
> is and a waste of my time.

If you consider it a waste of time, that probably says a
lot more about you than it does about X windows.

Quote:> I would rather have more fun writing an
> alternative and wonder if someone has(I think I will actually).
> Because X-windows is just too bothersome. Does anybody else agree?

Some think X is overkill, hence there are lightweight
alternatives under development, e.g. Berlin et al.

Quote:> This guy agrees with me.
> http://catalog.com/hopkins/unix-haters/x-windows/disaster.html

The unix haters thing is ancient history, anyway it was written
by some lamers years before Linus began his great work -

It's kind of a joke, like the movie "reefer madness".

jjs

by **mlw** » Wed, 07 Feb 2001 20:54:16

> I am very pissed off. I like Linux and Unix. I have been studying the
> works of Linux from his earlier versions of linux and it is very good
> modification of the minix system. The author of Minix actual argues
> that a microkernel based is more efficient but linux still is more
> powerful. Anyway, with all that said, Linux the Os is Cool. What is
> it missing, a GUI that is worthy something. And, I have been trying x-
> windows and I just quit because I just found out how crappy the system
> is and a waste of my time. I would rather have more fun writing an
> alternative and wonder if someone has(I think I will actually).
> Because X-windows is just too bothersome. Does anybody else agree?

In your rant, you offer no explanation for feelings. Without any more
information, it is impossible discuss rationally. However, I disagree with you
point of view, and I'll tell you why I like X very much.

(1) A well tuned X server can be very fast.
(2)I can run an X program on any machine and display its windows on any other
machine. (MS can't even come close.)
(3) X is analogous to a display driver under Windows, the actual window manger
and tool box can be changed easily.
(4) X is a well proven technology, it works well, why change it?

Aside from your ranting, name one thing that is wrong with X that can't be
addressed ?
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com

by **Lloyd Llewelly** » Wed, 07 Feb 2001 20:55:47

Quote:> http://www.xfree86.org/~keithp/talks/usenix2000/render.html

Thanks for the link - I found it informative.

by **Karel Jansen** » Thu, 08 Feb 2001 21:25:53

> Sucks is a bad word, I take that back. Any piece of software that has
> been developed over the course of so many years with the inclusion of
> different groups of people across the world doesn't deserve to suck.
> In my own experiences with my own Linux setup(RedHat7.0, Linux Mandrake
> 7.2), Xwindows and the Desktops have been slow and difficult to
> configure to my own liking. Under Gnome and KDE, applications take
> forever to load, large applications like StarOffice and Netscape crash
> (of course I can recover the system but still). LinuxConf may or may
> not load. After I stopped using Gnome(I thought maybe using just the
> wm I would get more speed) it took me forever to get the Window Manager
> (IceWm, fvwm) the way I wanted it. And after all that, I still went
> back to Gnome, because the window manager lacked the features that I
> needed.

What features did your windowmanager lack that you needed?

--

Regards,

Karel Jansens

==============================
"Go go gadget Windows." Crash!
==============================

by **Peter Haye** » Fri, 09 Feb 2001 01:46:01

> On Wed, 07 Feb 2001 00:06:40 +0000, Peter Hayes

> > > Aside from your ranting, name one thing that is wrong with X that can't be
> > > addressed ?
> >The one thing about X that I don't like is that there seems no way to
> >change resolution without keeping the desktop at the size of the highest
> >resolution, unlike Windows.
> Why would you want to?

Why wouldn't you want to, more like.

Dialog boxes and error messages can and do pop up somewhere on your virtual
desktop but out of sight of your real desktop. Why is this app not
responding? It's waiting for input to the hidden dialog box.

Nope, virtual desktops are a Grade One Bad Idea (tm). If you want one, fine
by me, but I'd like the option to keep the virtual desktop the same as the
real desktop.

Peter
--

In the 19th century surveyors measured the height of Everest
from 500 miles away in India.
This cannot be done today. Everest is no longer visible from
the survey location due to increased atmospheric pollution.

by **Mar** » Fri, 09 Feb 2001 06:44:35

On Wed, 07 Feb 2001 16:46:01 +0000, Peter Hayes

>> On Wed, 07 Feb 2001 00:06:40 +0000, Peter Hayes

>> >The one thing about X that I don't like is that there seems no way to
>> >change resolution without keeping the desktop at the size of the highest
>> >resolution, unlike Windows.

>> Why would you want to?

>Why wouldn't you want to, more like.

>Dialog boxes and error messages can and do pop up somewhere on your virtual
>desktop but out of sight of your real desktop.

Umm, that's not what I meant. Why would you want to set your
resolution to something lower than the maximum you've allowed in your
X-server? If you can't read the maximum, then change the maximum.

by **j..** » Fri, 09 Feb 2001 09:08:47

>On Wed, 07 Feb 2001 16:46:01 +0000, Peter Hayes

>>> On Wed, 07 Feb 2001 00:06:40 +0000, Peter Hayes

>>> >The one thing about X that I don't like is that there seems no way to
>>> >change resolution without keeping the desktop at the size of the highest
>>> >resolution, unlike Windows.

>>> Why would you want to?

>>Why wouldn't you want to, more like.

>>Dialog boxes and error messages can and do pop up somewhere on your virtual
>>desktop but out of sight of your real desktop.
><snippage>

>Umm, that's not what I meant. Why would you want to set your
>resolution to something lower than the maximum you've allowed in your
>X-server? If you can't read the maximum, then change the maximum.

You might want to "zoom in" for awhile without completely
mangling your desktop arrangment. This is a * side
effect of on-the-fly resolution switches in WinDOS.

--

|||
/ | \

by **Geoff La** » Fri, 09 Feb 2001 21:38:01

As one of the authors of X windows says, "Anyone who wants to write their
own industry standard networked windowing system is free to do so."

--
/\ Geoff. Lane. /\ Manchester Computing /\ Manchester /\ M13 9PL /\ England /\

I'm not schizophrenic. It's this guy beside me!

Very Computer

X-windows sucks..sucks...sucks!!!!

X-windows sucks..sucks...sucks!!!!

X-windows sucks..sucks...sucks!!!!

X-windows sucks..sucks...sucks!!!!

X-windows sucks..sucks...sucks!!!!

X-windows sucks..sucks...sucks!!!!

X-windows sucks..sucks...sucks!!!!

X-windows sucks..sucks...sucks!!!!

X-windows sucks..sucks...sucks!!!!

X-windows sucks..sucks...sucks!!!!

X-windows sucks..sucks...sucks!!!!

X-windows sucks..sucks...sucks!!!!