To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
This is must be emphasized. X Window System is more optimal for non-desktop usages and a lot of UNIX or Linux users know this by heart. "
Only those Linux users who don't know anything and are looking for something to blame for their problems.
All the other operating systems have gone to the X model with a server process for graphics: dwm.exe on Windows and the compositor on OSX.
If you want me (I can't speak for other people) to take your X complaint seriously, show us the API usage in Windows or OSX that compare to X and how the other desktop system is better.
Now, believe it or not, I do believe Win7 is currently far more advanced because of the work MS put into multithreaded API usage. But Windows Vista and previous versions are not.
I don't know how Vista/Win7 works, but Quartz in Mac OS X is nothing like X.org. It does NOT adopt a client/server paradigm the same way X does.
X requires clients to send simple, 80's-style graphics commands. Quartz has taken an approach more evolved, where applications send it PDF commands that are automatically antialiased and are resolution independent.
I'll bite.
As I stated in another comment, X has its roots in a server/thin client model, way back when it wasn't economical to have a local windowing system on a workstation. Today, that model is still at the heart of X and in my personal opinion is one hundred percent useless in a desktop OS.
Windows' and OS X's UI stacks have never, ever had that ability, because they never needed it.
It's time for X to move aside and make room for a modern, responsive and rock-solid-stable UI in the vein of Quartz/Aqua.






Member since:
2009-06-09
This is must be emphasized. X Window System is more optimal for non-desktop usages and a lot of UNIX or Linux users know this by heart.