On Sun, 24 Jul 2005, Jim Thompson wrote: >My complaint was directed at X, not its applications. > >The reason I prefer a Mac is that I don't have to fsck with it to >have it work.
This was why I asserted that your complaints were against X applications and not X in general, or more specifically the X protocol. Though I do recognize that the X protocol isn't perfect. My point was, when people say 'X sucks', they usually mean 'X applications' suck or the 'X server configuration' sucks. Because users don't usually interface with the X protocol or server directly. So, unless you're a developer on the X team, when you say you need to 'fsck with it', I don't think you mean the X protocol or the server, right? As for your other email about the X protocol's support for color and rendering; my only comment is that the base protocol and philosophy has been around for a while and is still around. This tells me X did something right, even if it isn't perfect. As you mentioned, even Mac's have 'bad apples' (pun intended) once in a while. >> Unfortunately for X and Linux, these systems aren't as anal about >> UI guides. > >X never had a "UI Guide". > >There are themes for Windows and MacOS as well. > >You are aware that variety can be bad for you, right? Odd, I swore I said I agree with you on these points. Yet, you insist on disagreeing. Oh well... Though I didn't go as far as saying choice is bad. I prefer the terms 'pro' and 'con'. >> I don't understand why people need to point out that Unix and X are 30 >> year old technology. > >Did I say anything about the age of Unix (which is over 30) or "The X >Window System" (which at most is now 20 years old)? Well, unless your name is James 'People' Thompson, I'm pretty sure I wasn't talking about you specifically. >They do, especially when discussing electric cars, powered by fuel >cells, batteries or even (plug in) hybrids. You sure have a knack for missing the point, or at least misunderstanding it. --jc -- Jimen Ching (WH6BRR) [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
