Re: Linux v/s Mac OS X?

[Mayuresh A Kathe <mayuresh@xxxxxxxx>]

Hi Raju,

First, there should be no one protocol for the majority of devices available
out there, basically there should be bridges...

For that matter, NeXTStep did manage something like X but in much better
way, they called it remote execution of local apps...
Something like if I have a Graphics Manipulation Program on my system and
don't have enough power to render a complex graphic, I could send my
processing to a remote machine and still have the display at my end...
The primary difference between X and NeXTStep's model was that data was not
constantly sent to-and-fro between those two machines only after the
processing was done...
No network overload...

About making a better standard network graphics protocol which runs on
everything from Palm's to Cray's...
Well, wait a few months and witness pure magic...

Warm Regards.

~Mayuresh


on 23/3/2001 11:00 PM, Raju Mathur at raju@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> Hi Mayuresh,
> 
> I agree that X has flaws, is bloated, can cause problems.  Make me a
> better standard network graphics protocol which runs on everything
> from Palm's to Cray's and I'll be glad to adopt it.
> 
> Until then...
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -- Raju
> 
>>>>>> "Mayuresh" == Mayuresh A Kathe <mayuresh@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
>   Mayuresh> Hi Raju, Sorry about that (screwing up the name)...
> 
>   Mayuresh> The 'X Window System' is really sick in today's
>   Mayuresh> environment because we have all the power to run our
>   Mayuresh> Graphics systems as well as apps locally...  It really
>   Mayuresh> doesn't make sense to run the X Server and the X Clients
>   Mayuresh> on the same machine, something like running telnet to
>   Mayuresh> run applications on your own machine from your own
>   Mayuresh> machine :-)
> 
>   Mayuresh> Secondly, it was DOA because if you look at the way it
>   Mayuresh> was developed, God, you would just pass-out reading the
>   Mayuresh> way they tried to cover up their deficiencies...
> 
>   Mayuresh> Please visit
>   Mayuresh> http://catalog.com/hopkins/unix-haters/x-windows/disaster.html
> 
>   Mayuresh> Any way, please visit the following URLs, they make real
>   Mayuresh> good reading:
>   Mayuresh> http://www.osopinion.com/Opinions/MontyManley/MontyManley9.html
> 
>   Mayuresh> http://www.asktog.com/basics/firstPrinciples.html
> 
>   Mayuresh> Warm Regards.
> 
>   Mayuresh> ~Mayuresh
> 
> 
>   Mayuresh> on 23/3/2001 7:04 PM, Raju Mathur at
>   Mayuresh> raju@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
>>> <nitpick>
>>> 
>>> Nice argument, except you're applying it to a non-existent
>>> product.  There's no such thing as ``X Windows''.
>>> 
>>> From man X:
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> </nitpick>
>>> 
>>> IAC it'd be nice if you gave some reasoning why this putative
>>> ``X Windows'' is the shit/DOA you claim it to be.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> -- Raju
>>> 
>>>>>>>> "Mayuresh" == Mayuresh A Kathe <mayuresh@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>>> 
>   Mayuresh> Atul, I beg to differ on this point...  But, NeXTStep
>   Mayuresh> was the *first* Unix to have an absolutely elegant and
>   Mayuresh> stable interface...  (Again, that¹s because they didn't
>   Mayuresh> use X Windows ;-)
>>> 
>   Mayuresh> <click> Asbestos Underwear in Place ;-) </click>
>>> 
>   Mayuresh> To be very frank, X Windows is absolute shit...  It is
>   Mayuresh> dead, or rather as they say in America Hospital Slang,
>   Mayuresh> it was DOA i.e.  Dead On Arrival
>>> 
>   Mayuresh> ~Mayuresh