4 ms·
While I loved reading the Unix haters handbook it gets many things wrong. It gets a lot right too, but the point is it takes some critical thinking (and good kn
by paol 16y ago
While I loved reading the Unix haters handbook it gets many things wrong. It gets a lot right too, but the point is it takes some critical thinking (and good knowledge of Unix) to tell which is which.
In that respect I found the chapter on X to be one of the weakest. They trot out the old "X named the client and server the wrong way around" chestnut for example...
- JoachimSchipper 16y agoYes, I completely agree: that's the "ignore the VMS fanboys" part. It's a very good resource, but a rather uncritical collection of criticisms - some highlight important deficiencies, some highlight alternative implementations, some of it is out-of-date (most unices are quite stable nowadays), and some are just plain ignorant. I recall the chapter on X being rather sensible, but I don't exactly love X either. Maybe that coloured my perception.
- barrkel 16y agoWell, the naming is one thing; the architecture itself is worse. It's far more likely today for you to want to run applications on a server and be able to connect to and disconnect from them, like VNC or much better RDP, than it is for you to want all your applications running on the server to terminate when you disconnect your machine from the network.
- thingie 16y agoThere is nothing preventing any application to connect to another X display and push all its windows there, even if the original display session terminates. Emacs can sort of do that, for example, and there are some traces that something like that was intended even for GTK. But no application actually work in such conditions.
- drfugly 16y agoIsn't there xmove for this kind of stuff?