Linked by bcavally on Mon 21st Dec 2009 17:18 UTC
BeOS & Derivatives Today there are many operating systems available. Every vendor or community round it tries to make it as good as possible. Having different goals, different legacy and different cultures, they succeed in it more or less. We (end users) end up with big selection of operating systems, but for us the operating systems are usually compromise of the features that we would like to have. So is there an operating system that would fit all the needs of the end user? Is is the BeOS clone Haiku?
Thread beginning with comment 400631
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Legacy architecture == bad?
by cycoj on Tue 22nd Dec 2009 01:58 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Legacy architecture == bad?"
cycoj
Member since:
2007-11-04

"Can you give examples? What you write is so generic that I really don't understand what you're talking about. What are the confusing layers of complexity?


X for example is a piece of crap:

http://www.art.net/%7Ehopkins/Don/unix-haters/x-windows/disaste... http://www.art.net/~hopkins/Don/unix-haters/x-windows/disaster.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.art.net/~hopkins/Don/unix-haters/x-windows/disaster.html...

All the Unix-like OSes just need to drop X like a hot potato. It is dragging them down and the flaws are so ingrained as to be unfixable. Even the X.org developers think it is a piece of crap. The hoops they have to go through to make it modern are pretty crazy.

Every other OS has a much better and more modern GUI system design (from Windows to Mac OS X to Haiku.)

Unfortunately the day when Linux and friends drop X probably won't ever come. Which is one reason of many I try to work on Haiku.
"

Why do people always dig out the unix-haters book when it comes to criticising Linux/Unix/X. That book was written in 1994! Some of the criticism might have applied then but a lot is simply not valid any more.

Sure X has had problems, as have many other systems, here's an article from LWN.net which recaps the history of X and does address some of the problems.
http://lwn.net/Articles/354408/

Reply Parent Score: 2

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Why do people always dig out the unix-haters book when it comes to criticising Linux/Unix/X. That book was written in 1994! Some of the criticism might have applied then but a lot is simply not valid any more.

Sure X has had problems, as have many other systems, here's an article from LWN.net which recaps the history of X and does address some of the problems.
http://lwn.net/Articles/354408/


You're right about many of the problems having already been solved; libX11 has been replaced with libxcb - but how many projects have fully moved to libxcb? gtk+ is still hobbling along using a weird Frankenstein mess of X11 and gdk, so you never are able to clearly migrate away from X11 without having to do major surgery underneath it.

Then there is performance issues, integration issues, issues relating to memory and battery performance etc. It is a disaster and unfortunately none of the major vendors who do use it are willing to put the necessary dollars and man power into Xorg to address the short comings.

The current state in the *NIX world is abysmal - and any attempt to fix the problems are met with abuse as I experienced at the hands of the GIMP developers.

Reply Parent Score: 0

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

The current state in the *NIX world is abysmal - and any attempt to fix the problems are met with abuse as I experienced at the hands of the GIMP developers.


Yea I ran into this too. I was given a hostile reaction even when I could show that most users were not happy with the status quo.

There's too much blind defense of the status quo in the nix world. I was hoping that OSX would shake things up a bitby showing that Unix could be reformed for the desktop but that didn't happen. Criticism is still taken as if it was forwarded from bgates. There's also clear lack of desire on the part of open source developers to make Linux more appealing to the mainstream.

I tried out KDE 4.3 a while back and it just got on my nerves to the point where I wanted to put on openbox and set my system up from the command line. That's how I felt about KDE in 2002. OSX is what Linux should have been by now. I don't see much changing anytime soon especially now that it is clear that Google is not going to fund a major overhaul.

Reply Parent Score: 2

silix Member since:
2006-03-01

Why do people always dig out the unix-haters book when it comes to criticising Linux/Unix/X. That book was written in 1994! Some of the criticism might have applied then but a lot is simply not valid any more.

X11 as the core protocol, dates back to 1987 and hasn't changed ever since (with all subsequently added, allegedly "innovative" functionality, being in the form of a plethora of individual server "extensions", mostly not altering the core protocol, rather layering on it), more or less the same is to be said of the POSIX / SUS specification as a whole (API and structure wise, not much has happened since SVR5) so it's still valid - as is this http://www.linux.org.uk/~dan/rumor/rumor.shrink (written in 1981, yet looking as if i could have written it yesterday, as far as CLI command and their (in)consistency is concerned)

Reply Parent Score: 1