Linked by Kroc Camen on Thu 20th Aug 2009 09:43 UTC
What else would we talk about other than the massively [popular|controversial] article about X.org last week. We try and address a number of concerns about the article and common lines of reasoning / misunderstanding. Lastly, we move onto something completely different with topics on Google Chrome on Linux, IE6 and the two details we know about RockMelt: Rock. Melt.
Permalink for comment 379921
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:
2005-07-07
So, the original article as bullshit? so, the answers to the following two questions are "no" in your world?
yes, you hit the nail on its head just the same as reporter humping over the fact that lamborghini is bad for mud races.
Does X, or does it not, take down all the application an data within them when it crashes?
read the large print... DRIVER SHOULD NOT CRASH... EVER... And if you use suggested hardware... it doesn't... it is what all of us are telling you. btw. you didn't answer on my bet claim. Do you use NVidia closed driver?
And answer is... no. it can't. if you'd be at least 1% technical as you are pompous about it you'd know that for your self.
It can't crash networked gui application. It can't crash socket gui app which is running as underlaying service. It can't lose data if software is storing its history, and if session is saved... it will be restored
A lot of X11R6 is network based, trouble is not so many software uses that option. But that is not X problem.
Does X, or does it not, crash when a video driver misbehaves?
As most of us said. X doesn't crash, unless you use bad hardware. It hasn't crashed for me now for 5 years and being developer my self I suspect I trigger a lot more buggy events than you.
If you answer these questions with "yes", then you agree with the original article. If not, then you are using a special version of X that is better than what the rest of the world is using.
lol, spoken with words of angry 3 year old child who thinks he knows what computer is.
Please, tell us about your hardware. You avoid this like a plague... I wonder why...
update...
btw. if you want to sound clever don't use excluding and conditioned questions.
If I translate your claims we get this.
1) In case of global nuclear war, humanity would extinct as there is no possibility to survive such radiation extents.
2) As further effect, earth would be too polluted for humanity to live on it.
2 is stupid, humanity is already extinct... they don't need earth anymore. while if any human did survive... 2 is wrong by default.
and since answer to your 1st question is no... second is invalidated by the fact
Edited 2009-08-21 11:56 UTC