[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Subject Index][Thread Index]
Re: Linux v/s Mac OS X?
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...
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...
> -- 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:
>>> 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
>>> IAC it'd be nice if you gave some reasoning why this putative
>>> ``X Windows'' is the shit/DOA you claim it to be.
>>> -- 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