Linux-Development-Sys Digest #877, Volume #6 Thu, 24 Jun 99 21:14:29 EDT
Contents:
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (Vladimir Z. Nuri)
Re: RAID-1 and 2.2.9 revisited (John Hughes)
Re: X-Shell Development Environment ("Bob Bryla")
Re: Need a.out compiler (Aaron Thompson)
Re: performance counters under linux? (Przemek Klosowski)
Documentation Error, tasks.h (Matthew Carl Schumaker)
Re: Why we are still holding on to X Windows
Re: using C++ for linux device drivers (Andi Kleen)
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (Christopher Browne)
Re: Why we are still holding on to X Windows (Daniel Robert Franklin)
Re: Killer App? How many businesses might get started with Linux (Christopher Browne)
Re: Why we are still holding on to X Windows (Greg de Freitas)
Re: Why we are still holding on to X Windows (Cameron Hutchison)
Why we are still holding on to X Windows (Michael Gu)
Why we are still holding on to X Windows (Michael Gu)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Vladimir Z. Nuri)
Subject: Re: TAO: the ultimate OS
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 21:23:00 GMT
Emile van bergen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: >requirements -> design -> detailed design -> prototype -> beta -> release
vs.
: >code -> release -> code -> release -> code -> release
: Okay, lets draw religion into this, as this is clearly an argument
: between creationism and darwinism. ;-))))
I am absolutely in favor of both approaches. I am not stuck in
either one. Linux embodies the best of the latter. it is at the core
of the secret of its success (and what a success it is).
I am mostly philosophically aligned with ESR's paper.
however, I am hoping
to introduce some of the strengths of the former into the
next "insanely great OS" after Linux. let the bazaarites not
be so contemptuous of the cathedral builders. cathedrals are
great and artistic achievements, no? if win95/NT are
cathedrals, and linux is a bazaar, what is the cross between
a bazaar and a cathedral? that's easy.. the Tao!! hahahaha
: But seriously, every system what needs to adapt to a changing
: environment will undergo more development cycles than just one. And the
: OS'ses environment changes rapidly: users on one side change, hardware
: on the other side changes.
: Popper (and nature) argue 'piecemeal tinkering' tends to be more
: efficient than revolutionary design when it comes to adaptivity. Beauty
: is something else, however, and it seems you're looking for that.
: BTW, I have some ideas such as you do with Tao, but I'll save them for
: some other time.
--
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
"in theory, there's no difference [EMAIL PROTECTED]
between theory and practice, mad genius research lab
but in practice there is!" http://www8.pair.com/mnajtiv/
------------------------------
From: John Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RAID-1 and 2.2.9 revisited
Date: 19 Jun 1999 10:49:22 +0200
John Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > I'm currently installing a RAID 1(hardware) system with 2 mirrored 9GB
> > SCSI drives and a 4GB IDE sytem disk.
> > I have simple question - what's the most appropriate partitionig sheme
> > for a web server? Why I shouldn't put the swap on the RAID drives?
> >
>
> Ummm as far as "why..." Do you really need to mirror you swap space?
Umm... Of course you do?
The whole point of mirroring is to let you keep running even if a disk
dies.
--
John Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Atlantic Technologies Inc. Tel: +33-1-4313-3131
66 rue du Moulin de la Pointe, Fax: +33-1-4313-3139
75013 PARIS.
------------------------------
From: "Bob Bryla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: linux.dev.x11,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.alpha
Subject: Re: X-Shell Development Environment
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 18:26:06 -0500
That sounds like a good plan. After browsing a few Perl books, it looks like
it has the best of all the mishmash Unix tools I've used -- csh, awk, grep,
etc. My SuSE doesn't have TIX -- any quick URLs you could point me to?
Thx.
Uwe Schneider wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>you should combine a RAD scripting language with a high level GUI
>toolkit.
>Although there are a lot of combinations which meet your requirements, I
>would suggest you using Perl/TK. The reaons are:
>
>- Perl is an extremely powerful, extendible and extended (e.g.
>MIME::Lite for sending mail) scipting language (much better than Tcl in
>my opinion).
>- TK provides for a high quality user interface. It was born on X/Motif
>but was ported to other GUIs.
>- If TK isn't enough, take TIX (TK extended)!!!
>
>The combination is very portable and provides for an excellent
>functionality/lines_of_code ratio.
>
>A very good starting point for the whole thing is "Advanced Perl
>Programming" (O'Reilly), which is a must for every script programmer
>anyway.
>
>Best Regards,
>--
>Uwe Schneider | Telefon +49 7251 / 82587
>Karlsdorfer Str. 31 | Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>DE-76646 Bruchsal |
>Linux - OS al dente!
------------------------------
From: Aaron Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Need a.out compiler
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 23:27:19 GMT
exactly. i need the libs.
Frank v Waveren wrote:
> In article <7ku2sa$q7v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Aaron Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I need help compiling a.out binaries. I have an a.out assembler and linker,
> > i just don't have the compiler. If anyone has the neccessary files
> > "/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-linuxaout/*", please let me know. You can email them
> > to me at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> You can use gcc with the paramater "-b i386-linuxaout". You have to have the
> correct libs though.
> --
>
> Frank v Waveren
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ICQ# 10074100
------------------------------
From: Przemek Klosowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: performance counters under linux?
Date: 24 Jun 1999 17:32:18 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gregory Gerard) writes:
> does anyone have any inline asm code which I can use to read the timestamp
> counter on the pentiums and up to do performance measurements? I'll
#define RTSC(x) __asm__ __volatile__ ( "rdtsc" \
:"=a" (((unsigned long*)&x)[0]), \
"=d" (((unsigned long*)&x)[1]))
main(){
long long t1,t2;
RTSC(t1); RTSC(t2);
printf("RTSC took: %Ld cycles.\n", t2-t1);
RTSC(t1); sleep(1); RTSC(t2);
printf("The CPU clock is %Ld MHz.\n", t2-t1);
}
--
przemek klosowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (301) 975-6249
NIST Center for Neutron Research (bldg. 235), E111
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Gaithersburg, MD 20899, USA
.. and for spam extractors, FCC Commisioners' email is:
[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Matthew Carl Schumaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Documentation Error, tasks.h
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 18:12:20 -0400
I wasn't quite sure who/where to give this info to but here goes
There is a small documentation error in the tasks.h file
If a system has a heavily threaded app(and i mean more than 256 threads)
one has to modified the tasks.h file and increase the NR_TASKS value
but the the documentation in the file says:
/* On x86 Max 4092, or 4090 w/APM */
if you use any of these values or above your kernel won't boot
the max value I was able to use was 4088
In the wake of the whole "lack of tuning" info, somebody should probably
go and correct the comment.
Matthew Carl Schumaker
UPAC Lights Administrative Chairperson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
veni, vedi, velcro
I came, I saw, I stuck around
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Why we are still holding on to X Windows
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 14:58:34 -0700
On Thu, 24 Jun 1999 13:19:52 -0700, Michael Gu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>Matthias Warkus wrote:
>
>> It was the Wed, 23 Jun 1999 13:29:17 -0700...
>> ..and Junyang Gu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > If Microsoft is a monopoly, X Windows acts more like a monopoly in the
>> > Unix world.
>>
>> Blech. There are several independent implementations of X11, some by
>> commercial vendors in direct competition, some by non-profit
>> organisations.
>>
>
>Are they doing stuff conform to X or something completely new?
Consider this: Would you be willing to give up all of
your win32 apps tommorow?
>
>>
>> > Let's face it. X Windows is a really premitive base for modern GUI,
>>
>> How so?
>
>Simply put, it doesn't have enough functionality, and standardizations of
>advanced features like widgets are important to guarantee a common look on
>multi-platforms.
Except it isn't the 'look' that gets the work done. Otherwise
you wouldn't have those Desktop Themes that Bill charged you $50
extra for and you wouldn't have M$ themselves constantly making
subtle (and not so subtle) UI changes.
It's the interoperability standards that are useful for actual
work, not pointless lack of choice.
Besides, X isn't where the 'features' go anyways.
>
>>
>> > terrible font support breaks GUI all the time,
>>
>> My XFree86 server supports about every kind of font under the sun, how
>> does that break any GUI?
>>
>> > no sound capability, ....
>>
>> How is that needed in X? EsounD works just fine.
>>
>
>Sorry, I didn't know I need that to get sound. Sould it come along?
Just like you can casually leave out the sound infastructure
in any other enviroment.
[deletia]
--
It helps the car, in terms of end user complexity and engineering,
that a car is not expected to suddenly become wood chipper at some |||
arbitrary point as it's rolling down the road. / | \
Seeking sane PPP Docs? Try http://penguin.lvcm.com
------------------------------
From: Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: using C++ for linux device drivers
Date: 25 Jun 1999 01:15:07 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Samuelson) writes:
>
> Not sure if I understand your point -- was this a satire? Surely you
> didn't actually mean that code. Normal C practice is more like:
>
> char *s = malloc(strlen(UserName) + strlen("Your name is .") + 1);
> sprintf(s, "Your name is %s.", UserName);
>
> Still not pretty, but readable. Also it would be trivial to write a
> simple function sprintfdup(), analogous to strdup() vs. strcpy().
glibc has it as a GNU extension (although you tie your program to GNU;
it can be emulated with a wrapper on a ANSI-C system[1]):
char *ptr;
asprintf(&ptr, "Your name is %s\n", name);
...
free(ptr);
-Andi
[1] This relies on sprintf returning int and the number of characters;
this is guaranteed by ANSI-C, but not true on many pre-ANSI-C systems.
Still probably better than relying on the C++ library which is even
less portable in practice.
--
This is like TV. I don't like TV.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: TAO: the ultimate OS
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 00:34:22 GMT
On 23 Jun 1999 00:29:46 GMT, Terry Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <7kp52j$f94$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>The problem is that very often a detailed and unambiguous
>>design document is *more* difficult to realize, *and* less
>>unambiguous than the actual code.
>
>Of course its less unambiguous (inevitably). My concern is, if you dive
>straight into coding a complex API (for example, a set of OS system
>routines), where is the forethought? Some of the things you need to do
>for such a project are: decide on an orthogonal set of functions,
>decide on the usage model for the functions, decide on the error
>conditions brought up by the routines, devise a strategy for testing
>the routines, and document precisely what the routines accomplish.
>This is NOT the type of work I see being done by people who pop open VI
>or EMACS and start coding, but is the type of work necessary to produce
>robust code and products.
Fair enough.
This is why I would suggest that GNOME is more likely to be long-term
viable than KDE; they "opened the gates" for people to fiddle with
some of the components, but have taken a considerable period of time
to start to establish their compound document infrastructure.
There are a whole lot of putatively-GNOMEish apps that are GTKed; most
of the initial ones will probably be discarded as prototypes that were
useful for educational purposes but for little else.
Some of the better of the standards have come out of IETF processes;
by requiring *two* independent working implementations, this
establishes a good chance that:
a) That the protocol is viable, and
b) That we're not merely looking at a first-hack prototype.
>>I'm quite sure Sun, HP, SGI, Compaq, SCO etc. have quite
>>detailed requirements documents for each new release of
>>their respective OSes.
>
>Oh, I am sure you are correct; but the damage has already been done.
>I'm sure Intel also goes through quite a formal process to add new
>instructions to IA-32, but that doesn't make IA-32 a well designed
>ISA. It is the CORE of the product that requires the greatest
>attention to detail, and this is what Unix was missing (indeed, several
>of the now key features of Unix, such as portability by way of "C", and
>software resuability by way of pipes, were not added until several
>years after the original project began).
>
>To be fair, Unix was more of an exploratory/reseach project and not
>really intended to be a product, and this sort of engineering is
>necessary. But, of course, projects like these need to be engineered
>into workable products, and not just put out in unfinished form. I
>see open source as more exploratory- than product-oriented, and I'm
>not even sure many would disagree with that.
UNIX has gotten recreated several times over the decades. It is
readily arguable that some attempts (SYSV, perhaps) represent
questionable branches, adding some not-well-thought-out design.
>>The reason Open Source (no flames please) is so often
>>successful is that source code is the best specification
>>and design language available.
>
>There are many of us who would argue that open source is not
>successful (technically) at all. The main successful Open Source
>projects are simply implementations of well understood systems, such as
>the Linux kernel or Apache, and tend to require minimal API or user
>interface design, and are tested by brute force methods (e.g. release
>to a lot of users and see if it works for them). I don't see this model
>being extended to original, high quality, and innovative products, such
>as say IE5 (c.f. Mozilla as a failure as far as that goes). There are
>SOME exceptions: the GIMP and GNOME, for example, are turning out
>REASONABLY well, but those exceptions are few and far between, and
>really do not compare to high quality, commerical applications.
I don't think there are too many that would claim that you can hack up
any old thing you want, and expect it to scale into a robust, mature
product.
The attempted growth of the CP/M "clone" Microsoft bought into a GUIed
application environment is an exemplary testament to this.
But the notion that prototyping, when used intelligently, is not of
value in mapping out the parameters of a system design, is pretty
silly. UNIX is a very good environment for doing prototyping, and has
represented a useful tool set for determining the feasibility of some
difficult system designs.
The fact that Pointy Haired Bosses (or some idiot "free software"
fans) then demand that the prototype be deployed in production,
without any cleanup of design, is a separate issue.
--
I would rather be in the back of a car then a cdr.
-- Blackboard in 6.011 area
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/unix.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel Robert Franklin)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Why we are still holding on to X Windows
Date: 24 Jun 99 23:43:27 GMT
Greg de Freitas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Sorry to OT this, but:
>I run Debian/potato w/KDE. not a problem.
>I wish to _try_ gnome, what is gnome, where does it 'fit'?
It is similar to KDE in concept.
>will I still have
>Xserver? KDE? if so, _WHY_ would I want to squeeze another layer in between ?
>When I first heard about gnome, I _thought_ it was a _replacement_ for X.
>apparently, it isn't (is it ?).
No. For more information I refer you to www.gnome.org.
However, IMO GNOME has a number of design flaws which still need to be
worked out. It is certainly prettier than KDE but in my experience not as
stable. There are also some really nice things in KDE (absent in GNOME)
which I cannot live without, such as a single-click to open
files/directories, and consistency between the window manager and the rest
of the environment (there is no GNOME window manager).
- Daniel
--
******************************************************************************
* Daniel Franklin - Postgraduate student in Electrical Engineering
* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
******************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Killer App? How many businesses might get started with Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 00:34:08 GMT
On Wed, 23 Jun 1999 18:19:24 +0100, Rob Darwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>If someone could facilitate a way that non-linux knowledgeable companies
>could set up a pair of Linux Servers that could do Hot Switch, full
>duplex file serving, then it would be a no-brainer for business to use,
>that, as the hassle of file server downtime is immense.
>
>I would urge that this very simple, clearly limited project would make a
>very good first steps for companies to start with Linux.
>
>? Is there is resource that could get this solution ?
>? Could Linux do this?
>
>Regards, and sorry if this is a bit off topic.
Not off topic, and there are web resources on this *sort* of thing:
<http://www.anime.net/linux/>
<http://www.henge.com/~alanr/ha/>
I suspect that VA Research and Penguin Computing are working on this
sort of thing.
There are probably some kernel facilities that will prove necessary to
add (e.g. - drivers to read status information from devices like disk
drives, some structures in /proc to "publish" this data).
A lot of this stuff has traditionally been pretty tightly integrated
with the hardware, which more-or-less mandates hardware vendor
participation, hence my mention of VA/Penguin.
I suspect that some discussions have taken place on this; there may be
mailing lists on the topic. See the URLs above, as starting points.
--
"SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical reasons* why it is
necessary to sacrifice a young goat to your SCSI chain now and then."
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/linux.html>
------------------------------
From: Greg de Freitas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Why we are still holding on to X Windows
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 20:19:40 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"John McDonald, Jr." wrote:
>
> On 24 Jun 1999 11:57:18 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul D. Smith)
> wrote:
>
> >%% Greg de Freitas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > gdf> I run Debian/potato w/KDE. not a problem.
> > gdf> I wish to _try_ gnome, what is gnome, where does it 'fit'? will I
> > gdf> still have Xserver? KDE? if so, _WHY_ would I want to squeeze
> > gdf> another layer in between ? When I first heard about gnome, I
> > gdf> _thought_ it was a _replacement_ for X. apparently, it isn't (is
> > gdf> it ?).
> >
> >No. You're really confused.
> Okay.. I'm really confused too, then.
> The way I figured out what was going on I felt that GNOME provided
> another layer of abstraction as well. Because in actuality, I'm using
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ :-) GLAD it's _not_ just me then,
So, I can run X and anonwm, get an xterm up, kill anonwm (deco disappears, shame
:-) and run otherwm&
So what do i need gnome for ???
> the Enlightenment WM, not GNOME. (AFAICT) The two have different
> Config managers and what not, and it seems like the GNOME
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Doesn't everything!!!
> configuration manager allows me to switch between other GNOME WMs
> without restarting the X server. Also, with the GNOME config manager,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I hear RH includes 'switchdesk' for this.
> I can call up any GNOME WM configuration program, but not the other
> way around.
>
> >Gnome is a replacement, or alternative, to KDE. It's not a replacement
> >for X. It's not a layer between KDE and X. You would probably find all
> >this info, and more, at http://www.gnome.org and be much less confused.
>
> I realize that X is still the server, and that window managers use the
> abstractions that X provides to interact with hardware. Also, I know
> that Gnome is not a layer between KDE and X. But I was under the
> impression that Gnome WAS a layer between Enlightenment and X, or any
The only way it would make sense to me would be if HAVING gnome running lessened
the load, or included audio that works with everything(tm)
> other WMs that chose to use the GNOME tools, etc... Perhaps I should
> go read the webpage, unless someone wants to explain this further.
Doubtless!
:-)
>
> Oh well, thanks!
>
> [-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-]
> John K. McDonald, Jr. Alcatel, USA
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> please remove -delete- for responses.
> --
> "I speak for me and not this company"
>
> TO SPAMMERS:
> Please view the definitions for
> "telephone facsimile machine,"
> "unsolicted advertisement," and the
> prohibition and penalty for sending
> unsolicited faxes before sending Un-
> solicited Commercial E-mail to the
> above address. Violators WILL BE
> PROSECUTED. These can be found
> in:
>
> The Telephone Consumer Protection Act
> of 1991, Title 47, Chapter 5,
> Subchapter II, Section 227.
> [=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=]
--
Ciao 4 now, Greg.
# Email : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] #
# Email : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] #
# To Live, To Love, To Learn, To Leave A Legacy. #
------------------------------
From: Cameron Hutchison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Why we are still holding on to X Windows
Date: 25 Jun 1999 00:38:44 GMT
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>As for Audio, what the hell does a GUI have to do with audio? Yes, Linux
>needs a standard networked streaming audio spec, but that is not "X."
>You may be confusing X with the Window manager. X is conceptually a
>display driver/interface.
It is/should be more than that. It's the user interface. For the case of
input it does it quite well - you've got keyboard input, mouse input,
tablets, joysticks (I think), etc. But when it comes to output, you've only
got one type - a display. It engages only one of our senses, sight. X
should also handle the output for our other senses, the most obvious one
being sound.
It's important from a practical perspective too. It's quite likely an
application would want to synchronise sound and video. With separate
display and audio servers this would be much more difficult, perhaps
impossible without some sort of communication between the display server
and the audio server.
It comes down to the question of where the boundaries for X should be. I've
often seen it written that X handles the display and nothing else - it's up
to other servers to handle sound. This is wrong. X currently handles more
than just the display - it also handles input and multiple types of input
devices too. Where are the arguments to remove the keyboard and mouse input
from X and make them separate servers? After all, keyboard and mouse have
nothing to do with the display, why should X handle them? Because it needs
to be integrated with the output. That's why sound belongs in X, IMHO.
I'd also argue that X should handle output for other devices such a
smellavision and tactile feedback devices when such things arrive.
X should be thought of as a user I/O service, not just a display service.
--
Cameron Hutchison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | Onward To Mars
GCS d--@ -p+ c++(++++) l++ u+ e+ m+(-) s n- h++ f? !g w+ t r+
------------------------------
From: Michael Gu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Why we are still holding on to X Windows
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 23:28:08 -0400
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Path:
SMTP.FleetMortgageGroup.com!news-master.compuserve.com!nntp-nih2naab.compuserve.com!EUBPEBAS.SONY.com!news-master.compuserve.com!arl-news-svc-7.compuserve.com!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!204.127.161.3!wn3feed!worldnet.att.net!wnmaster1!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Host: pc721t.tus.ssi1.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
From: Junyang Gu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Why we are still holding on to X Windows
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: Junyang Gu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 16:29:17 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Lines: 11
X-Newsreader: Microsoft (R) Exchange Internet News Service Version 5.5.2448.0
Organization: Silicon Systems, Inc.
Content-Type: text/plain
If Microsoft is a monopoly, X Windows acts more like a monopoly in the
Unix world.
Let's face it. X Windows is a really premitive base for modern GUI,
terrible font support breaks GUI all the time, no sound capability, ....
If Linux is going to desktops to compete with Microsoft, it got to come
up with something much better then X.
So, why don't we drop the X and innovate?
------------------------------
From: Michael Gu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Why we are still holding on to X Windows
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 23:28:08 -0400
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Path:
SMTP.FleetMortgageGroup.com!news-master.compuserve.com!nntp-nih2naab.compuserve.com!EUBPEBAS.SONY.com!news-master.compuserve.com!arl-news-svc-7.compuserve.com!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!204.127.161.3!wn3feed!worldnet.att.net!wnmaster1!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Host: pc721t.tus.ssi1.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
From: Junyang Gu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Why we are still holding on to X Windows
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: Junyang Gu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 16:29:17 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Lines: 11
X-Newsreader: Microsoft (R) Exchange Internet News Service Version 5.5.2448.0
Organization: Silicon Systems, Inc.
Content-Type: text/plain
If Microsoft is a monopoly, X Windows acts more like a monopoly in the
Unix world.
Let's face it. X Windows is a really premitive base for modern GUI,
terrible font support breaks GUI all the time, no sound capability, ....
If Linux is going to desktops to compete with Microsoft, it got to come
up with something much better then X.
So, why don't we drop the X and innovate?
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.development.system) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Development-System Digest
******************************
