Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 15th Aug 2009 17:55 UTC
X11, Window Managers Over the past couple of months, and especially over the past couple of weeks, I've been working very hard to write and complete my thesis. I performed all the work on Windows 7, but now that the thesis is finally done, submitted, and accepted, I installed Ubuntu - and immediately I was reminded of why I do not do any serious work on Linux: the train wreck that is
Permalink for comment 379140
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Well, Thom
by membrain on Tue 18th Aug 2009 01:02 UTC
Member since:

You are blurring many lines in your post, not the least of which is the fact that the architecture of the graphics system has no relation to potential crashes, as does no architecture nowhere to any other kind of crash.

Assuming that the basic principle is sound (i.e. if you don't write software that is designed to crash, to formulate it anthrophosophically), then crashes should not occur either way, and the basic setup of *is* sound. There might be room for improvement of the architecture per se, but even as it is now, it's not exactly "constructed to crash". The problem merely lies in bugs in the server code and, mostly, in the drivers.

The fact that on Windows 6.x (is that the line of Vista and 7? Well those are what I mean) the graphics subsystem can recover even in the case of a graphics driver crash (it sounds doubtful to me that exactly *this* is actually the case.. I'd rather expect a BSOD from a crashed graphics driver, but maybe it's actually true) is neat, but has nothing to do with the fact that crashes still can occur. So can they with Or not. Or not on Windows 7 either.

So my grief with your post is that you're either implying a fix in the wrong place (i.e. making the "inner hull" of "nukeproof", so that when something blows up inside, it stays inside, which is not what needs to be done and is just a workaround, maybe a neat one, but still, systematically it's wrong), or you're simply incoherent inside your post in that you are first saying crashes need to be fixed, but towards the 2nd half you move to the argument that crashes should be contained.

Also, this post, instead of being about, rather runs down to the old argument of "the theory of perfection of F/OSS" and "the real-world adherence of closed-source software". So all I read from your post is that real-world-adhering closed source software is better than F/OSS which always tries to be perfect, but never achieves it. A worthy debate on its own, but not worth packaging and disguising it within a post supposedly about instability of

Edited 2009-08-18 01:04 UTC

Reply Score: 2