Linked by lopisaur on Fri 25th Jun 2010 22:21 UTC
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu Based upon a recent email to the X.Org developers' mailing list, Canonical is nearing the point of one of their goals for Ubuntu 10.10 of a rootless X Server, or being able to run the X.Org Server without root privileges.
Permalink for comment 431609
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Big deal...
by Neolander on Sat 26th Jun 2010 14:59 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Big deal..."
Neolander
Member since:
2010-03-08

Well, its architecture is not the greatest, but pretty much any computer can handle it fine. (By comparison, Windows Vista and 7 and very slow, even though their graphics architecture is fairly well designed.)

Try to play with it when some heavy calculation is running in the background, and see if it remains responsive ^^ Though you're right that "slow" is not the good word. In terms of performance, X is acceptably fast, except for demanding things like games where I think that crappy drivers and compositing are more likely to blame.

No, apps decide to kill themselves when they crash. And guess what, if Windows crashes, all your apps crash too!

Wrong. If windows' graphic layer crashes, and I've seen it crash many times, the desktop disappears for a moment, then reappears with all your apps on top of it. You can safely save your work before rebooting your computer and investigating what's wrong if crashes happen again.

By a bunch, I think you really mean two. Gtk+ and Qt.

There's also the Enlightenment toolkit which is slowly getting popular lately, but you're right that the UI toolkit mess on Linux is not nearly as complicated as the media API mess...

However, they both cooperate pretty well, and can be themed to look the same very easily.
I know, QtCurve is one of the first things which I install on my Linux boxes. However, it's just about looks. Things like open/save dialogs are still inconsistent...

However, I do agree that we should only have one standard toolkit: Qt. Gtk+ is simply technologically inferior in every way. I would be very happy if GNOME was rewritten in Qt...

Well, I agree that QT looks much better for the most part, but developers are lazy (tm). Properly rewriting GNOME in QT would take a long time, during which people would continue to complain that the Gnome desktop stagnates. The result of the rewrite would be extremely buggy. Do you think the Gnome devs would ever take this risk ?

Edited 2010-06-26 15:04 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1