Agree to disagree then. X is shit. I remember first reading that chapter in 1998, and it resonated then just as well as it does now. X is shit. It is the weirde

Agree to disagree then. X is shit. I remember first reading that chapter in 1998, and it resonated then just as well as it does now. X is shit. It is the weirdest abstraction of network "transparency" which inevitably manages to require state on both ends of the network connection -- it isn't robust. How well does your X session do when there is a network hiccup? The protocol is round-trip heavy. Even with xcb, X clients need to make a tremendous number of round-trips, especially early on. There have been mitigations for X for low bandwidth links, but X networking has never been usable on high latency links. Ever forward X on an airplane? I pity you. The drawing model of X is an antiquated relic. Server side rendering is pretty much useless, such that X has basically become a sort of bastardized inefficient VNC. There's a reason no widely used screen remoting or thin-client system uses the X design. It was a poor idea then, and it is still deficient today.