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 379110
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
gadget00
Member since:
2007-02-16

Heh, that comment made sense because IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. X window has this issue, and it's true. No matter how great toolkit/drivers they can pull, a change(not just recode) is needed.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Mark Williamson Member since:
2005-07-06

Heh, that comment made sense because IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. X window has this issue, and it's true. No matter how great toolkit/drivers they can pull, a change(not just recode) is needed.


Well, I believe that it actually happened - whatsmore it shouldn't have happened and it'd be nice if X was better designed. I just didn't think the way it was presented contributed much of use. Thom's work shouldn't have been lost but the fact that the window was being resized at the time isn't really relevant - it made it sound like Thom was claiming X was so flawed it can't even handle window resizes, which is *not* the point he was trying to make. I'm sure we'd all like software to be *better* but we could direct the debate about X.org a lot more effectively if we knew what needed to be better (and why).

I've had X and Windows and Macs all crash *without my resizing a window!*. The fact that I didn't even have to resize a window to provoke a crash does not indicate a fundamentally flawed architecture any more than Thom's experience does, except in the sense that they shouldn't have crashed at all. The bugs behind that behaviour I saw could have been anywhere from the hardware, to the kernel, to the windowing system.

I just think the debate would have been a lot more interesting and productive if we'd started with a clearer idea of Thom's central point: that X applications should not die because of a bug in the X server code.

What I do know about X suggests it has a decent chunk of legacy cruft on the side but I don't see why that should necessarily prevent it from being an effective platform. Pretty much everything we use has legacy cruft, many popular Unix-related codebases have roots going back decades.

Reply Parent Score: 3