On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 6:12 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Indeed. Even after the general gui-provider can be assumed to be wayland
> in much the same was as it has been X for decades now, rootless/nested X
> will be around for many years/decades, for much the same reason that I'm
> still using dosbox to effectively provide "nested DOS" for that single
> legacy/proprietary game[1] I still play somewhat frequently. Some
> things, in particular X-based proprietary apps such as but not limited to
> games, are unlikely to ever be ported, so those continuing to find a use
> for them will continue to have a use for X, almost certainly eventually
> in nested and ultimately emulated form, much as I do with that game and
> dosbox.
>
You are likely right. There are contractors with stories of the US
Government running mission critical infrastructure on servers which
emulate an older computer, which in turn is emulating an even older
computer.
> I actually really like the ux-* idea. So much so I wish I'd thought of
> it. =:^) It doesn't come across as nearly as "tired and worn out" as
> "gui-*" does, here (tho I already see a reply from someone else with the
> opposite reaction, favoring desktop-* over ux-*).
>
My apologies, sir, for making myself known; please understand it was
never my intention to be a nuisance. I simply send things to this list
so that I can feel like I am doing something. Up until now I had not
been sure my messages were readable.
us·er ex·pe·ri·ence
noun: user experience; plural noun: user experiences
the overall experience of a person using a product such as a
website or computer application, especially in terms of how easy or
pleasing it is to use.
>From this definition, I see no connection to anything graphical. To
the extent that words have meaning I think the selection of "ux-*"
would be a mistake.
Respectfully,
R0b0t1
