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

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

Post by Joe Slo » Mon, 04 Dec 1995 04:00:00





>[...]
>>As I said, I am very happy with X, and fvwm in particular. I was merely
>>attempting to reason with the man who said X was not a good thing...

>But X *isn't* a good thing. In fact, it's a *lousy* thing.

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
~

 
 
 

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

Post by Patrick Yane » Mon, 04 Dec 1995 04:00:00




>[...]
>>As I said, I am very happy with X, and fvwm in particular. I was merely
>>attempting to reason with the man who said X was not a good thing...

>But X *isn't* a good thing. In fact, it's a *lousy* thing.

Don't you mean to say "intimidating"?

 
 
 

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

Post by Mats Andtbac » Tue, 05 Dec 1995 04:00:00




>>But X *isn't* a good thing. In fact, it's a *lousy* thing.
>OK, let's say for the sake of argument that it's not -
>What do you offer in it's place?

Sun NeWS. I can do that, since you suggested Windoze, which is also
proprietary.

NeXTStep. Not quite as technically wonderful as NeWS, but still
maintained (and lightyears ahead of X, but most things are...)

MGR. Not as technically razzle-dazzle as either of the above, but
unquestionably the leanest on system resources.
--
" ... got to contaminate to alleviate this loneliness
      i now know the depths i reach are limitless... "
                -- nin

 
 
 

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

Post by Mats Andtbac » Tue, 05 Dec 1995 04:00:00




>>But X *isn't* a good thing. In fact, it's a *lousy* thing.
>Don't you mean to say "intimidating"?

Thanks for reminding me! That, too.
--
" ... got to contaminate to alleviate this loneliness
      i now know the depths i reach are limitless... "
                -- nin
 
 
 

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

Post by Jeffery Ch » Thu, 07 Dec 1995 04:00:00


<FOLLOW UP TO ALT.2600 OMITTED>

: >>Give me a break.  X-Windows has no standard buttons or styles, no
: >>built-in device-independance (just pixels for any device, not inches,

: What you seem to not like is your particular Window Manager.
: >What do you offer in it's place?
: I have a few suggestions

:    Motif Window Manager
:    OpenView
:    OpenLook
:    <and there are many more>

Huh? when did we stop talking about the X protocol and start talking
about window managers? I work with xwindows a lot, and would find
discussion about it interesting, but if you guys want to talk about whose
window manager is better, then I might as well check out the
alt.linux.users.bashing.win95 group: I can get a lot more half-witted
narrow-minded name calling there.
==========================================================
Jeffery Chow   3rd year Computer Science,  UBC

Home Page: http://www.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca/spider/j8g1
----------------------------------------------------------
"Now what if we were to make a large wooden badger?"
==========================================================

 
 
 

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

Post by Steve June » Thu, 07 Dec 1995 04:00:00



: [...]
: >As I said, I am very happy with X, and fvwm in particular. I was merely
: >attempting to reason with the man who said X was not a good thing...

: But X *isn't* a good thing. In fact, it's a *lousy* thing.

        Why do you say so?
        Can you be more specific about what you find lousy?

        sj

: --
: " ... got to contaminate to alleviate this loneliness
:       i now know the depths i reach are limitless... "
:               -- nin

 
 
 

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

Post by Bob Manne » Fri, 08 Dec 1995 04:00:00


Quote:>>As I said, I am very happy with X, and fvwm in particular. I was merely
>>attempting to reason with the man who said X was not a good thing...

>But X *isn't* a good thing. In fact, it's a *lousy* thing.

Depends what you're after. As a _distributed_ windowing protocol it is
very good, and as far as I can see the need for such _distributed_
systems is becoming greater and greater as the 'net grows. Its nice to
be able to run apps on your machine from the next building or from the
other side of the world.

X is a _protocol_ not a GUI. Window managers written for X vary in
quality, but there are several which I can configure to my tastes (I
like vtwm, not fvwm). At least you can choose the front end to use and
still run the same apps! (Try that with Windows)

Many of the applications stink... but that isn't the fault of X.

naturally *my* X applications are a model of user-interface
design. Actually probably not, but my apps aren't intended for wider
consumption ;)
--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Manners                                  Osney Laboratory

                                                University of Oxford
                                                01865 288762
Try: http://swift.eng.ox.ac.uk                  Linux - the only choice

    This message brought to you from an entirely Microsoft free system.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
 
 

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

Post by Mats Andtbac » Fri, 08 Dec 1995 04:00:00



Quote:>>But X *isn't* a good thing. In fact, it's a *lousy* thing.
>Depends what you're after. As a _distributed_ windowing protocol it is
>very good, and as far as I can see the need for such _distributed_
>systems is becoming greater and greater as the 'net grows. Its nice to
>be able to run apps on your machine from the next building or from the
>other side of the world.

True, but even as a distributed protocol X is a kluge. It seems good
when compared to non-distributed protocols, but when you look at how
remoted windowing protocols _ought_ to be done, it sucks.

For a bit of tragicomic relief, try http://web.kaleida.com/u/
hopkins/x-windows.html (part of the _Unix Hater's Handbook_,
abridged); it argues things better than I can.

Quote:>X is a _protocol_ not a GUI. Window managers written for X vary in
>quality, but there are several which I can configure to my tastes (I
>like vtwm, not fvwm). At least you can choose the front end to use and
>still run the same apps! (Try that with Windows)

This is arguably a Good Thing, but the underlying protocol is dain-
bramaged, primitive and broken. It lacks device independency; I mean,
*come on*! What's the point of displaying graphics on a remote,
potentially completely foreign, device if the communications protocol
is device-dependent?

Quote:>Many of the applications stink... but that isn't the fault of X.

True, but it *is* the fault of X that they can't interoperate
correctly. Yes, I blame the ICCCM on X; that's the sort of thing a
windowing protocol _should_ standardize, at least as a set of
guidelines of how to properly use extant IPC features; preferrably a
_good_, standardized API for interclient communications should be
provided.  X fouls this up _badly_.
--
" ... got to contaminate to alleviate this loneliness
      i now know the depths i reach are limitless... "
                -- nin
 
 
 

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

Post by Mats Andtbac » Fri, 08 Dec 1995 04:00:00




>: But X *isn't* a good thing. In fact, it's a *lousy* thing.
>    Why do you say so?
>    Can you be more specific about what you find lousy?

Lack of device independency, lack of easy server expandability, for
two. If you have access to the _Unix Hater's Handbook_, read chapter
7; I believe excerpts from it are available on the web somewhere.
--
" ... got to contaminate to alleviate this loneliness
      i now know the depths i reach are limitless... "
                -- nin
 
 
 

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

Post by Svlad Cjell » Sun, 10 Dec 1995 04:00:00





> >: But X *isn't* a good thing. In fact, it's a *lousy* thing.

> >       Why do you say so?
> >       Can you be more specific about what you find lousy?

> Lack of device independency, lack of easy server expandability, for
> two. If you have access to the _Unix Hater's Handbook_, read chapter
> 7; I believe excerpts from it are available on the web somewhere.

What exactly is device independence?  X can handle generic SVGA cards
and monitors.  What is server expandibility?
Anyway, what are the alternatives to X?

<scary NIN sig deleted :)>

--Bryan Seigneur
Live free. Live well. Use Linux.

 
 
 

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

Post by Mats Andtbac » Mon, 11 Dec 1995 04:00:00




>> Lack of device independency, lack of easy server expandability, for
>> two. If you have access to the _Unix Hater's Handbook_, read chapter
>> 7; I believe excerpts from it are available on the web somewhere.
>What exactly is device independence?  X can handle generic SVGA cards
>and monitors.

If you want to draw a line on an X display, you have to tell the
server to "draw a line from these pixel coordinates to those pixel
coordinates" - in other words, if you want to draw a 5cm long line,
you have to know how many pixels per cm there are; if you want to fill
the screen, you first have to ask the server how many pixels there are
on it.

Decent protocols use things like Display PostScript to avoid the
entire pixel mess; then, you don't have to worry about things like the
aspect ratio of the screens either. Much better.

Quote:>  What is server expandibility?

In OOP terms you might say, "the ability to download programming
objects into the server". For example, if your client program draws a
lot of pictures of keyboard keycaps for some reason, it could
download a few lines of code to the server which draws one keycap, and
then after that just tell the server to run that code whenever it
wanted a new keycap drawn; this saves on network bandwidth, and most
importantly it keeps the "drawing" business in the server where it
belongs.

See http://web.kaleida.com/u/hopkins/unix-haters.html for more
details.

Quote:>Anyway, what are the alternatives to X?

All too few. Sun had a system called NeWS; I'm not certain if it still
exists, but it was probably technically the best one. NeXTStep still
lives. MGR might not be practical except in very limited scenarios.

Don't get me wrong, I wish there was something that could kill X off;
but the fact that there probably isn't, doesn't make X any better.
--
" ... got to contaminate to alleviate this loneliness
      i now know the depths i reach are limitless... "
                -- nin

 
 
 

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

Post by Michael Dill » Thu, 14 Dec 1995 04:00:00



>>  What is server expandibility?

>In OOP terms you might say, "the ability to download programming
>objects into the server". For example, if your client program draws a
>lot of pictures of keyboard keycaps for some reason, it could
>download a few lines of code to the server which draws one keycap, and
>then after that just tell the server to run that code whenever it
>wanted a new keycap drawn; this saves on network bandwidth, and most
>importantly it keeps the "drawing" business in the server where it
>belongs.

JAVA!

See http://java.sun.com

You can use the Linux version of Netscape 2.0b3 to run JAVA applets.

--
Michael Dillon                                    Voice: +1-604-546-8022
Memra Software Inc.                                 Fax: +1-604-542-4130

 
 
 

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

Post by Mats Andtbac » Thu, 14 Dec 1995 04:00:00




>>>  What is server expandibility?

[my explanation deleted]

Quote:>JAVA!

Is well and good, but not what you would think of as a networked
windowing protocol to compete with X11.

Quote:>See http://java.sun.com
>You can use the Linux version of Netscape 2.0b3 to run JAVA applets.

If there's any way to avoid using Netscape at all, I for one will stay
the heck away from it. YMMV.
--
" ... got to contaminate to alleviate this loneliness
      i now know the depths i reach are limitless... "
                -- nin
 
 
 

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

Hello!

I have 3 questions about X-windows:

Is there a good graphical bases typewriter (not editor) in which
i can write and layout text in x-windows, without using a bunch
of codes as in e.g. latech.

Is it possible to make a telnet like connection in a MS windows
based PC to a unix machine which is capable to run the X-windows
system. So i could use for example Xmaple when I am sitting home
where i dont have unix, but I do have a fast pc and internet.

Is there a special X-windows newsgroup?

Please e-mail me because i cant read the newsgroups so often.

thanks

Sander Zboray
http://gene.wins.uva.nl/~zboray

2. ssh : command restriction possible ?

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

4. Spllitting a large binaray file into chunks of 720 Kb...

5. X-windows on Windows 95

6. gdb: core dump stack trace

7. X-Windows client for Windows NT/95

8. Vortex2 Soundcard under RedHat 6.2!!

9. Why does RedHat Linux 4 X-Windows try to look like Windows 95

10. X-window software for Windows/Windows 95

11. Windows 95, what a joke.

12. Windows 95, what a joke