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 X.org.
Thread beginning with comment 378641
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Yes
by jibadeeha on Sat 15th Aug 2009 18:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Yes"
jibadeeha
Member since:
2009-08-10

Not sure why I would get modded down for stating that my experience of Linux is different to the parent poster ... oh well ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Yes
by Tuishimi on Sat 15th Aug 2009 23:31 in reply to "RE[2]: Yes"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

I did not mod you down, but I considered it because of this statement:

I can't say that the same is true with regards to Windows in terms of stability.


I have been working with and developing on Windows for about 15 years now and I have never found it to be "unstable," especially once NT was released.

I've never had the problems of crashing that people speak of... but I maintained my systems (even as linux users have become used to performing or monitoring their system, performing maintenance if or when needed), kept the file system tight, cleaned out out the registry, etc.

Fact is, I rarely find ANY operating system as buggy as 90% of the people on the internet seem to rant about.

I've been a heavy user of Windows/Windows NT (3.x all the way to 7), Mac OS/Mac OS X (7.x-10.5), VMS, OS/2 Warp, and my favorite, BeOS. For each of these systems I have used them for at least a solid year, for casual use and for development purposes. None of them ever gave me problems (unless I knowingly went ahead and installed buggy products or drivers - which I have done, but I would not blame the OS if something goes wrong).

People throw up comments like they are tried and true facts, evidence to be pondered, when in reality they are just points of view arrived at by one bad experience which, if they had known the operating system better, might never have happened or never had caused them grief.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: Yes
by fury on Sun 16th Aug 2009 08:22 in reply to "RE[3]: Yes"
fury Member since:
2005-09-23

"People throw up comments about their experience..."

Right, just like Thom just did. It doesn't matter that a great portion of people who are Linux-savvy have no such troubles, because Thom's voice is louder and the happy people don't have a need to submit to OSNews about the wonderful time we're having. I will assume that he was "mad as hell and wouldn't take it anymore" but it was a waste of time and comes off as incredibly whiney.

My advice for Thom (who, for me, has pretty much lost the slow-coming, gradual trust he's earned for decent, fair reporting since he took over) is to lock up his keyboard until he has something real to report, not just his frustrating (and embarrassing, given his self-proclaimed title of "OS aficionado" or whatever he calls himself) tale of that time he was unable to figure out Linux. He rags on X.org and calls for it's dismissal when this is such a naive viewpoint that I pity him. Here are the facts:
* Network transparency has nothing to do with performance or reliability
* X.org might suck, but X11 does not
* Duplicating the amount of work to rebuild a system with the capabilities of X is stupid
* Because of the other points in this list, *all* *other* attempts to build alternative windowing systems have failed. And I know. Because I was involved with some of them.

How's my experience? 720p video plays fine (on my rather crappy 1.7ghz + 1G RAM and AGP Geforce 7300) *while* running compositing and deforming the whole desktop into a sphere mode, with Compiz and KDE 4.1. (I've even done tests with multiple videos with decent screen framerate).

Fact is, it *could* be an X.org bug, but more likely it is bad drivers, configuration, or a poorly supported graphics chipset. The fact that Thom stubbed his proverbial thumb and then got mad and decided to lash out against X is a sad one, and unbefitting of someone with the experience he has.

Reply Parent Score: 10

RE[4]: Yes
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Mon 17th Aug 2009 04:39 in reply to "RE[3]: Yes"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Are you seriously saying that you never had any instability problems with windows NT 3.51?? I don't think that's possible, if you really use it. It was marginally more stable than win 95 sr3, while require 3 times as much memory.


It was the first release of a completely new operating system, of course it was unstable and buggy as heck.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Yes
by jibadeeha on Mon 17th Aug 2009 09:57 in reply to "RE[3]: Yes"
jibadeeha Member since:
2009-08-10

I was talking from my own experience with regards to the stability of Windows (95,98,XP), but perhaps should have made that more clear in my posting.

I think you have some very good points, in that people to tend to have a bad experience with an Operating System for one reason or another which then forms there opinion about that OS when in reality it could have been a particular hardware issue etc.

I have found Windows NT 3.51 / 2000 and Ubuntu 8.x/9.x to be very stable platforms for me that have given me very little to critise. I suspect in Thom's case, the problems are mostly hardware related but he is right to some degree that such problems (e.g. shoddy drivers, etc) should not bring down the whole stack.

Reply Parent Score: 1