5 ms·

> designed for a different age of computers i want to say this as kindly as possible, but every time i have heard statements to this effect (think "paradigm sh

> designed for a different age of computers i want to say this as kindly as possible, but every time i have heard statements to this effect (think "paradigm shift", "new age", etc.), the presumably "better" technology (which more often than not just means newer) is always oversold. i would reconsider your line of argument, because as someone who has heard this several times throughout my career, this is almost certainly a bellwether of disappointment.

rkangel 7y ago
But computers were different in the 80s when X was designed (to talk about one example). We don't use networked terminals to a mainframe, the graphics stack (hardware and software) works completely differently now, user expectation on compositon and visual fidelity has increased, and the security threat model has changed (in that it exists now and never used to). There has been no one paradigm shift, merely 40 years of incremental advance leading to a different landscape with different requirements.
- erik_seaberg 7y ago
  > We don't use networked terminals to a mainframe The mainframe is now a rack of servers, still separated from the framebuffer by a long network connection. The decline of X has us so desperate that we're abusing web browsers as remote displays.
  - jcranmer 7y ago
    Is it the decline of X11, or the fact that HTML+JS+CSS has proven to be a better model for building UI applications than X11 has?
  - cesarb 7y ago
    > The decline of X has us so desperate that we're abusing web browsers as remote displays. There's a fundamental difference between a X11 remote display, and an application running within a web browser. This difference becomes obvious when the network connection drops: the X11 application will immediately freeze, since all of its code was running in the remote computer, while the application within the web browser can retain some of its functionality.
  - DonHopkins 7y ago
    Abusing? Web browsers are much better remote displays than X-Windows servers, by a long shot.
  - the_why_of_y 7y ago
    Do you want that rack of servers to keylog you? That's what it would be able to do with an X11 connection.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

rkangel 7y ago

But computers were different in the 80s when X was designed (to talk about one example). We don't use networked terminals to a mainframe, the graphics stack (hardware and software) works completely differently now, user expectation on compositon and visual fidelity has increased, and the security threat model has changed (in that it exists now and never used to). There has been no one paradigm shift, merely 40 years of incremental advance leading to a different landscape with different requirements.

erik_seaberg 7y ago
> We don't use networked terminals to a mainframe The mainframe is now a rack of servers, still separated from the framebuffer by a long network connection. The decline of X has us so desperate that we're abusing web browsers as remote displays.
- jcranmer 7y ago
  Is it the decline of X11, or the fact that HTML+JS+CSS has proven to be a better model for building UI applications than X11 has?
- cesarb 7y ago
  > The decline of X has us so desperate that we're abusing web browsers as remote displays. There's a fundamental difference between a X11 remote display, and an application running within a web browser. This difference becomes obvious when the network connection drops: the X11 application will immediately freeze, since all of its code was running in the remote computer, while the application within the web browser can retain some of its functionality.
- DonHopkins 7y ago
  Abusing? Web browsers are much better remote displays than X-Windows servers, by a long shot.
- the_why_of_y 7y ago
  Do you want that rack of servers to keylog you? That's what it would be able to do with an X11 connection.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]