4 ms·

I still think it's a miracle that the browser was the solution to the client-server problem x-windows was trying to solve all along. How we ended up with bill

I still think it's a miracle that the browser was the solution to the client-server problem x-windows was trying to solve all along. How we ended up with billions of people able to interact with an app that we can all build at home seems insane...

kick 7y ago
I still think it's a miracle that the browser was the solution to the client-server problem x-windows was trying to solve all along. X was the solution to the problem MIT had, and as such, the problem X was trying to solve. It worked very, very well for what it was trying to solve. How we ended up with billions of people able to interact with an app that we can all build at home seems insane... Java. Java did this. On billions of devices! Everywhere from your smart card to the mainframe. Before Java, Dis! Before Dis, Forth! Good luck running a web browser plus your application on a smart card, or even (decently) on an underpowered netbook.
- owl57 7y ago
  Good luck running a web browser plus your application on a smart card, or even (decently) on an underpowered netbook. Sufficiently young people probably suspect these were called netbooks as some joke. They run Emacs just fine and without constantly swapping, but a web browser?
  - hedora 7y ago
    They’re fine little web browsers if you manage to enable web browser acceleration for the integrated intel video card. If not, they can’t even run JavaScript ads, because apparently ads like to refresh the screen with a static image at 60fps. Software rasterizers can’t keep up with that (even on 32 core, >200W TDP xeons, from what I’ve seen...) The web really sucks at everything other than network effects.
    - otabdeveloper4 7y ago
      > They’re fine little web browsers if you manage to enable web browser acceleration for the integrated intel video card. Hardware acceleration makes things slower, not faster. > Software rasterizers can’t keep up with that (even on 32 core, >200W TDP xeons, from what I’ve seen...) You're nuts. Software rasterizers keep up with DOS games just fine, even on an old 386. It's the fact that they're trying to use Javascript and other garbage-collected or object-oriented languages to code these rasterizers.
lazyier 7y ago
If X-windows wasn't complete garbage at actually providing remote applications then it may have had a chance.
- klodolph 7y ago
  Being complete garbage didn’t stop JavaScript either :/ At least JS had the excuse of being designed and implemented by a single developer in three weeks. X Windows was part of Project Athena, a $50 million project from MIT, DEC, and IBM with a five-year schedule.
  - kick 7y ago
    X worked great for what it was aiming to do. It's not even bad for really remote applications. It works really well, just don't use a dozen layers of poorly-designed abstraction. Write something with xcb or xlib, and you'll get instantaneous response from the other side of the planet. Here's a nice little article from 1989 telling just how great it was for the time: https://simson.net/clips/1989/1989.TechRev.Athena.pdf https://simson.net/clips/1989/1989.TechRev.Athena.pdf
    - klodolph 7y ago
      Eh, that’s a nice fluff piece but doesn’t match my understanding or experiences working with X. Once X had more widespread adoption in the 1990s you started to see a lot more hate. The layers of abstraction are there because X is such a godawful piece of shit. Sure, your application will be fast if you only use XCB or Xlib (and XCB is just a modern replacement for Xlib, made because of how deeply flawed Xlib is, and it can’t even fully replace Xlib). But few people are willing to put in the blood, sweat, and code to write something that is pure X. So if X worked great for what it was aiming to do, it was aiming to do the wrong thing.
      - kick 7y ago
        X was hated when it got widespread adoption because people began using it for things it wasn't intended for. X was aiming to do the right thing. Sure, if you're using it to connect to a box in Canada over a satellite connection in Johannesburg during 1995 with countless abstractions, you're going to have a horrible time. Use the right tool for the job.

kick 7y ago

I still think it's a miracle that the browser was the solution to the client-server problem x-windows was trying to solve all along. X was the solution to the problem MIT had, and as such, the problem X was trying to solve. It worked very, very well for what it was trying to solve. How we ended up with billions of people able to interact with an app that we can all build at home seems insane... Java. Java did this. On billions of devices! Everywhere from your smart card to the mainframe. Before Java, Dis! Before Dis, Forth! Good luck running a web browser plus your application on a smart card, or even (decently) on an underpowered netbook.

owl57 7y ago
Good luck running a web browser plus your application on a smart card, or even (decently) on an underpowered netbook. Sufficiently young people probably suspect these were called netbooks as some joke. They run Emacs just fine and without constantly swapping, but a web browser?
- hedora 7y ago
  They’re fine little web browsers if you manage to enable web browser acceleration for the integrated intel video card. If not, they can’t even run JavaScript ads, because apparently ads like to refresh the screen with a static image at 60fps. Software rasterizers can’t keep up with that (even on 32 core, >200W TDP xeons, from what I’ve seen...) The web really sucks at everything other than network effects.
  - otabdeveloper4 7y ago
    > They’re fine little web browsers if you manage to enable web browser acceleration for the integrated intel video card. Hardware acceleration makes things slower, not faster. > Software rasterizers can’t keep up with that (even on 32 core, >200W TDP xeons, from what I’ve seen...) You're nuts. Software rasterizers keep up with DOS games just fine, even on an old 386. It's the fact that they're trying to use Javascript and other garbage-collected or object-oriented languages to code these rasterizers.

lazyier 7y ago

If X-windows wasn't complete garbage at actually providing remote applications then it may have had a chance.

klodolph 7y ago
Being complete garbage didn’t stop JavaScript either :/ At least JS had the excuse of being designed and implemented by a single developer in three weeks. X Windows was part of Project Athena, a $50 million project from MIT, DEC, and IBM with a five-year schedule.
- kick 7y ago
  X worked great for what it was aiming to do. It's not even bad for really remote applications. It works really well, just don't use a dozen layers of poorly-designed abstraction. Write something with xcb or xlib, and you'll get instantaneous response from the other side of the planet. Here's a nice little article from 1989 telling just how great it was for the time: https://simson.net/clips/1989/1989.TechRev.Athena.pdf https://simson.net/clips/1989/1989.TechRev.Athena.pdf
  - klodolph 7y ago
    Eh, that’s a nice fluff piece but doesn’t match my understanding or experiences working with X. Once X had more widespread adoption in the 1990s you started to see a lot more hate. The layers of abstraction are there because X is such a godawful piece of shit. Sure, your application will be fast if you only use XCB or Xlib (and XCB is just a modern replacement for Xlib, made because of how deeply flawed Xlib is, and it can’t even fully replace Xlib). But few people are willing to put in the blood, sweat, and code to write something that is pure X. So if X worked great for what it was aiming to do, it was aiming to do the wrong thing.
    - kick 7y ago
      X was hated when it got widespread adoption because people began using it for things it wasn't intended for. X was aiming to do the right thing. Sure, if you're using it to connect to a box in Canada over a satellite connection in Johannesburg during 1995 with countless abstractions, you're going to have a horrible time. Use the right tool for the job.