4 ms·
Rather than finding a prettier band aid, I would follow Ubuntu's lead and just drop the X protocol all together. Neither Windows nor Mac OSX use X and both of
by loewenskind 16y ago
Rather than finding a prettier band aid, I would follow Ubuntu's lead and just drop the X protocol all together. Neither Windows nor Mac OSX use X and both of those managed to make really nice looking systems that have a relatively clean direct API. And they can easily handle the desktop running on a different machine than the OS.
- wickedchicken 16y agoWhat do you mean "easily handle the desktop running on a different machine than the OS?" The Windows and OSX driver model seems pretty tied to a specific machine, both require 'remote desktop' software which merely simulates sitting in front of the real machine. One of X's chief goals was that an X client (the actual program, the terminology seems backward) can communicate to any one of multiple connected servers. Since these servers are connected via a network they can come and go as they please while the Windows/OSX model has one static desktop shared by all.
- loewenskind 16y agoSoftware could be written to do the same thing for OSX or Windows if there were enough interest. The fact is that the use case for what X offers nearly never comes up (relatively speaking). No competent software developer would base his whole system around a use case that 99% of all users will never use once in their life.