To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Indeed, Quartz is a direct linear descendant of Display Postscript. It is, for want of a better phrase, Display PDF with an Open GL backend.
It's also proprietary. X is Free, but we seem unable as a community to produce anything of Quartz's quality. It also seems to me that we're seeing Quartz receding so far ahead of us into the distance that it's a embarassment to the entire Free Software desktop.
I agree totally. As far as networking is concerned, X is well and truly out of date - throwing (up to 32-bit) bitmaps across even a 1Gb/s LAN is just plain silly, and hideously inefficient.
NoMachine have done an excellent job with NX, but the stone cold fact is that even NX isn't all that great - I know, I've used it. Having said that though, it was across an ADSL network, and the upload speed was only 256Kb/s.
What X needs, once it has been modularised properly, is to create an additional stack, which allows X servers to send drawing commands across the network, while keeping the bitmap-based stack for compatibility purposes.
X.org should dust off the archives and look at things like Sun's NeWS (remember that?), and develop something similar, preferably with XML-based drawing instructions.
I also think that graphics hardware should NOT be controlled by X directly, but by the kernel. It is after all the kernel's job to manage hardware, and it's the X server's job to manage displays. There should be a clear border between the two.





Member since:
2005-07-06
My favorite graphics system was on NeXTSTEP. The things that system could do: 12-bit graphics, window-dragging, fully obfect oriented (and seanless in that regard, as opposed to multiple clipboards, multiple libs, etc.), display PostScript... all on 25/33 MHz processors with sometimes only 8 MB of RAM (32 MB was pure luxury).
That environment of course became the basis for MacOS X (even the window server process is still the same name I believe).