What do people have against X?

Gullible Jones · 2005-06-11 02:20:47

Yeah, I know, I'm not a programmer or a sysadmin, so maybe I'm not really in a position to comment... But I've never gotten why so many *nix users dislike the X Windowing System. It may be a bit hefty in terms of HD space, but it doesn't use much RAM, and it's at least as responsive as whatever Windows uses.

As I mentioned before, the only real problem it has is HD space (perhaps due to keeping all the drivers in a single package?), and that is a complete nonissue on today's machines - these days, handhelds have enough HD space for a full version of X.

phrakture · 2005-06-11 02:24:38

Most people feel the GUI takes away from the actual working of the computer...

also, I don't like usng the mouse...

cactus · 2005-06-11 02:39:39

I have no problem with X, or GUIs for that matter. I like pictures and the occasional eye candy. Colors too.

There are, however, some things that are far easier to do, and more efficiently done, on the command line.

I like all cli on my servers, but I like having a WM on my workstation (for terminal management, web page viewing, graphics editing, etc.)

And I don't hate my mouse. I dont care if it makes me slow. There is something reassuring to me, surfing the web with a mouse in my hand..it does make me slower and less productive though...but guess what. Sometimes I dont care.

ozar · 2005-06-11 02:44:18

I enjoy using both, the command line and X, but don't care for lots of eye candy when in X. In fact, I like what most would consider a very dull looking desktop. Too much of the flashy stuff distracts me. I don't mind using the mouse, but sometimes it gets in the way, too.

phrakture · 2005-06-11 02:52:50

ozar wrote:

I enjoy using both, the command line and X, but don't care for lots of eye candy when in X. In fact, I like what most would consider a very dull looking desktop. Too much of the flashy stuff distracts me. I don't mind using the mouse, but sometimes it gets in the way, too.

heh, I use ratpoison... which means I have no desktop...

my typical ratpoison session has firefox up and running and a terminal running screen with about 6 or 7 shells

Gullible Jones · 2005-06-11 03:51:53

Well, I do like the command line... I agree, it is more efficient for a lot of things.

As for eyecandy... I can live with a bit of pseudotransparency to jazz up my desktop. You can forget flopping menus, wavering windows, and spinning virtual desktops, though.

Edit: to make things clearer, I'm talking about the people who want stuff like GNOME with DirectFB, or those who say that X is bloated.

keevn7 · 2005-06-11 04:41:28

There was much discussion about this on the Gentoo forums and it seems that many people hate it because of its mandatory network abilities. On the other hand, I do not care because it works and it works well.

cactus · 2005-06-11 04:55:35

X, the server, is great because of its network abilities.

Gullible Jones · 2005-06-11 05:08:24

If the network capabilities are the beef, I don't see the problem. X runs perfectly well on completely obsolete hardware, does its job well, and doesn't hog system resources; if it's also got network transparency thrown in, so much the better.

In truth, the only beef I have with X is xterm and twm, because they tend to become redundant and can't be uninstalled. But TWM is probably useful as a backup, if you can't get another WM to work properly... And I suppose that it's convenient to have a terminal emulator packaged with the windowing system.

paranoos · 2005-06-13 17:23:24

In response to networking capabilities in X, I read a comment on slashdot not long ago that if X didn't have networking, it would probably be more bloated. You see, X needs a way to communicate with its window managers and clients (programs running). Network protocols were perfect for this, libraries are already written and available, and had an added bonus of being able to run on thin clients. To get rid of the network code in X, they would have to write their own protocol for communicating with programs, and vice-versa -- which would add more code, bloat, and of course bugs.

iBertus · 2005-06-13 17:46:42

Some people claim that X is slow because of it's networking features. Just from personal experience I would dismiss this claim completely. In fact, X is very fast on my system (faster than Windows GDI). This isn't the same as M$ putting everything and the kitchen sink into the Windows shell, but a very intelligent way of making X useful for more than one thing. Almost every *NIX application uses a handful of similar features to really expand the possibilities and simplify!

Geez, anyone ever tried using remote desktop on Windows XP?

phrakture · 2005-06-13 17:48:57

I always hated people saying "why not remove the networking stuff from X"

go ahead and read through the X11R6 (and R5,R4,R3,... hell the very first one too... X1R1?) papers... you learn rather quickly that X isn't a program at all - it's just a protocol. X.org built a program which *implements* the protocol.

X is kinda like TCP. It's a data/information transfer and communication protocol.

Saying "let's remove the network component from X" is as dumb as saying "let's remove the network component from HTTP".

sarah31 · 2005-06-13 19:25:17

well X is a dumb name.

It's development is to slow and dodgey.

The are too many mediocre toolkits for it instead of one or two really good ones.

Mostly the development is too slow.

phrakture · 2005-06-13 19:33:47

sarah31 wrote:

well X is a dumb name.

no way it's totally Xtreme!

sarah31 wrote:

Mostly the development is too slow.

agreed... but it's not like X has a lot of bugs to work out...

sarah31 · 2005-06-13 19:35:41

Yeah it has always baffled me how known issues (and ones that I understand are not unsolvable ) can persist from "release" to "release".

iBertus · 2005-06-13 19:53:01

sarah31 wrote:

well X is a dumb name.
It's development is to slow and dodgey.
...
Mostly the development is too slow.

This has always been one of the major arguments of people who wish to replace X on the linux desktop. Perhaps, now that Xorg seems to be making pretty regular releases, this will change. I just wish Xcomposite would make improve so that we could all enjoy mac'ish effects with our network transparancy.

(mez) · 2005-06-14 01:56:37

For those that haven't already seen it, check out the chapter about X from the Unix Haters' Handbook here. Cracks me up every time I read it.

(Oh, and MIT-MAGIC-COOKIE-1 (about 1/3 of the way down) is still in the xauth man page... )

Arch Linux

#1 2005-06-11 02:20:47

What do people have against X?

#2 2005-06-11 02:24:38

Re: What do people have against X?

#3 2005-06-11 02:39:39

Re: What do people have against X?

#4 2005-06-11 02:44:18

Re: What do people have against X?

#5 2005-06-11 02:52:50

Re: What do people have against X?

#6 2005-06-11 03:51:53

Re: What do people have against X?

#7 2005-06-11 04:41:28

Re: What do people have against X?

#8 2005-06-11 04:55:35

Re: What do people have against X?

#9 2005-06-11 05:08:24

Re: What do people have against X?

#10 2005-06-13 17:23:24

Re: What do people have against X?

#11 2005-06-13 17:46:42

Re: What do people have against X?

#12 2005-06-13 17:48:57

Re: What do people have against X?

#13 2005-06-13 19:25:17

Re: What do people have against X?

#14 2005-06-13 19:33:47

Re: What do people have against X?

#15 2005-06-13 19:35:41

Re: What do people have against X?

#16 2005-06-13 19:53:01

Re: What do people have against X?

#17 2005-06-14 01:56:37

Re: What do people have against X?

Board footer