TCLUG Archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [TCLUG:3372] More chatter about X



> I am not attacking Christopher, but rather disagree with the thought
> that it is 'shit'.  It was a very good thing in its time...   The
> language used just indicated to me, that the author did not have
> a clue.. (that is the description I normally hear from junior high
> PC users).  I am happy to hear you know some of the valid reason
> improvements are needed.  As are standards and applications.
>
> For X11 between 'too many cooks in the kitchen' and time it did become
> a mess.
>
> My point was not that it was great.. It is just usable and their are
> MANY useful applications on X.  X is mostly used as a standard for
> cross platforms, and is ancient...  We also have:
> 	GL/OpenGL/Motif/etc.
> All of which work with a Xserver.


	I think that it ought to be pointed out (if no-one else has yet), that "X"
is really more like a protocol than a piece of software, and there are
better and worse implementations of that protocol -- XFree86, MetroX,
AcceleratedX, Reflection X, ad infinitum.
	I, for one, *love* X, because it makes it easy to manage all my servers
here at work from one workstation.  True client-server is really the
greatest strength of X.  Things like resource use, graphics performance and
font rendering are really implementation- and hardware-dependent, not
internal to X itself...  That seems to me rather akin to blaming sendmail
for spelling mistakes.

	As for complaining about a lack of software for X, I can only say "huh?"
I'd say there's probably an *overabundance* of stuff on my system.  I still
probably only know what about a tenth of the stuff in  my /usr/bin/X11
directory is actually for.  There's a paucity in certain areas -- like
decent games, office suites or integrated development environments (in other
words, stuff that UNIX workstation users have traditionally snubbed) but
that's already changing.

	The need for a consistent user interface is something I've heard bandied
about a lot -- About 3 years or so ago, a bunch of UNIX vendors took it
seriously enough to collaborate on CDE, the "Common Desktop Environment",
which is apparently HP-VUE with some add-ons from IBM and DEC desktop
environments.  It's now standard on a lot of UNIX mainframes, which I
suppose is a step in the right direction.  However, I *loathe* CDE.
Actually, I clung to fvwm for quite some time, but I've become enamored of
WindowMaker and other NextStep-esque desktops/windowmanagers of late.  I
guess the point is, like so much of the UNIX world, there *are* standards --
unfortunately, there are dozens of them.  I, for one, dig freedom of choice.
It's fine with me if CDE (or KDE) becomes the default, so long as there are
still options for the dissenting minority.

	Integrating the UI into X seems like a bad idea that could only be done
poorly.  It would seriously hamper client-server -- when I'm running X
sessions from my PC to multiple remote servers, I don't want to drag a lot
of baggage along, or worry about competing UI standards.  Furthermore, it
would defeat UNIX's greatest strength -- in fact, its design philosophy: a
large variety of small tools and services which form building blocks for
large, complex tasks.  You run what you want, and there's almost nothing
that's actually essential or irreplaceable.  Again, it's like saying that
something like sendmail should incorporate the duties of your desktop
client.  It may seem like it would simplify things, but it really becomes a
major restriction in a very short time.
	For an example, compare with WinNT -- which has the GUI embedded in the
*kernel* for chrissakes.  As a desktop system, it's not bad.  As a
standalone server, running something like IIS, it's okay.  But remote
management and administration is a pain.  There are still a lot of tasks you
just can't do without going up to the machine, kicking off whoever's using
it, logging in as Administrator and working from the console.  PCAnywhere or
Remotely Possible make remote operation possible, but the network load is
atrocious.  In a large networked environment, where you've got users moving
from machine to machine, you have to use some cobbled-together solution like
NetWare Remote Profiles, which is a failure-prone server & network hog, or
else give up on the idea of individual user accounts altogether.
	With X, I can fire up an xterm on someone else's PC, 'su', and start
adminning away without the user even being aware of my presence.  Desktop
info is centralized and lightweight, to the point where the user doesn't
even need a real PC -- an XTerminal or an NC suffices.  If the user has an
old P166 and I've got a dual Pentium400 with a RivaTNT card, I get the
benefits of my hardware, even when I'm running apps from their machine.
This is the sort of thing MS is desperately trying to get WinNT to do, but
their design philosophy makes it nearly impossible.  With X, it's a breeze.

	I think a lot of complaints about X arise simply from not understanding
what X really *is*, or the environment in which it was designed to work.
It's definitely a complicated system (although the config tools that have
come out in the last couple years are a major help), and parts of it are
downright Byzantine.  But it is also tremendously powerful and flexible in
was that outstrip any other GUI I've ever used.