the pro-linux args

[javapunk]

X has been around for an incredibly long time. And all graphics drivers are written for it.  Changing to an new system, Y windows, or such would require a complete rewrite of every gui library and graphics driver. I agree it could be improved upon but a new system would need to be compatible with X. If it aint broke don't fix it.

[Jens]

Some positive things about the XFree86 implementation of X:free, stable, modular, network transparent, platform independent, modular/extensible. It has quite a number of disadvantages, which don't fit in a pro-Linux thread.

Btw. Y looks very promising. With XFree86's current license problems it's likely to gain momentum.

[swpalmer]

If it aint broke don't fix it.

Some people are of the opinion that it IS broke.  (as a desktop graphics interface... for X-Terminal purposes it seems to be ok.)

Are graphics drivers on Linux really tied to the windowing system?  That seems like it's the wrong layer for a driver to be working in...  e.g. X should call more general/primitive graphics methods in the driver.  OR is X handling too many layers of the windowing system?  E.g. if you wrote X on top of OpenGL, then the drivers are not tied to a windowing system.  OS X uses "Quartz" and "Quartz Extreme" to do their windowing system on top of OpenGL this way and it works quite nicely.  From what I hear, Microsoft may be doing something similar with D3D for Longhorn.

X configuration is more automated in later versions of Linux.  (There I said something positive )

Games published by our own members! Check 'em out!

[Jens]

Are graphics drivers on Linux really tied to the windowing system?  That seems like it's the wrong layer for a driver to be working in...  e.g. X should call more general/primitive graphics methods in the driver.

X uses the graphics drivers, not the other way round.  

X configuration is more automated in later versions of Linux.  (There I said something positive )

[swpalmer]

X uses the graphics drivers, not the other way round.  

Then I don't understand javapunk's comments of:

X has been around for an incredibly long time. And all graphics drivers are written for it.  Changing to an new system, Y windows, or such would require a complete rewrite of every gui library and graphics driver.

[Jeff]

So a few clarifying comments:

on X.  You are all 100% correct that a good local GUI shell could be written for Linux.  In fact thats why I brought up OSX because IMO thats exactly what Apple did ontop of FreeBSD.  However the Linux community seems entirely X centric so i have my doubts it will happen there.  Still I could be wrong.

And yes when I referred to it being "too expensive" that was indeed short hand for its client/server nature that requires many more layers of communication and processing then necessary for a local GUI.  Its an expense a desktop system doesnt need to be paying.

I think that clarifies most of my comments that were unclear.  IF Apple were to release on Intel I think they would ultimately be stronger for it but I agree thats unlikely to happen.  Baring that then yes, I could imagine someone doing an OSX like shell for Linux.  Done right it would I think make Linux a player in the desktop space, but again I don't see any will to make it happen in the Linux world.

[Jens]

Then I don't understand javapunk's comments of:

X has been around for an incredibly long time. And all graphics drivers are written for it.  Changing to an new system, Y windows, or such would require a complete rewrite of every gui library and graphics driver.

I think he made a mistake in this comment.

I read that the Y-people want to create some kind of X-Wrapper as a temporary solution for a smoother transition from X to Y. However in the long term the graphical apps (or at least the underlying libraries) have to be rewritten, otherwise the new approach of offering Server-Side widgets wouldn't make much sense. This is quite some work.

[Jens]

You are all 100% correct that a good local GUI shell could be written for Linux.  In fact thats why I brought up OSX because IMO thats exactly what Apple did ontop of FreeBSD.  However the Linux community seems entirely X centric so i have my doubts it will happen there.  Still I could be wrong.

Currently you are right, although (as already said several times) the current license problems of XFree86 will lead to changes. Y-Windows is the only promising approach that I know of. There is also Fresco and some windowing systems for embedded devices. Fresco (http://www.fresco.org) uses CORBA for language independance, but it doesn't look like it will be established as a standard. It's important to take the best of all worlds and userinterface consistency is certainly a strength of Mac OS X. Server-side widgets are definitely needed to get there.

And yes when I referred to it being "too expensive" that was indeed short hand for its client/server nature that requires many more layers of communication and processing then necessary for a local GUI.  Its an expense a desktop system doesnt need to be paying.

I quoted something in this thread, which basically says: Not the client/server concept is slow, but the implementation X has for it. ("Slow" means a high latency. Throughput of X is good.)

[javapunk]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/personaltechnology/2001872755_ptlinux060.html
Seattle Times section on Personal Technology compares Xandros and Lindows as two alternatives to Windows for desktop computing. Their verdict: installation - excellent; OpenOffice - good enough; digital cameras, printers and other peripherals - excellent; CD burning - no problems; video playback - could be better (with more progress bars and support for Apple's formats); digital camcorders - poor; burning audio CDs - poor; Net access and Web browsing - no problems.
Ripped from slashdot