Linked by lopisaur on Fri 25th Jun 2010 22:21 UTC
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu Based upon a recent email to the X.Org developers' mailing list, Canonical is nearing the point of one of their goals for Ubuntu 10.10 of a rootless X Server, or being able to run the X.Org Server without root privileges.
Thread beginning with comment 431623
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Big deal...
by WereCatf on Sat 26th Jun 2010 16:26 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Big deal..."
Member since:

Try to play with it when some heavy calculation is running in the background, and see if it remains responsive ^^

Are you saying that X becomes unresponsive if you have heavy calculation in the background? If so then you're just talking out of your rear-end. I often compile stuff and as you should know compiling IS rather CPU intensive. And I haven't noticed any kind of lag or issues with responses from X.

Wrong. If windows' graphic layer crashes, and I've seen it crash many times, the desktop disappears for a moment, then reappears with all your apps on top of it. You can safely save your work before rebooting your computer and investigating what's wrong if crashes happen again.

True, indeed. And surprisingly many people insist that X and Windows act the same in this regards but they don't: I've had X crash several times and it took down everything I had open, including a coding session I hadn't saved for half an hour. But I've also had Windows graphics layer crash, in XP and in 7, and all that happened was that the screen went black for a moment and then got back, with all my apps still intact.

What does this mean? Well... that even the god damn old XP handles this thing better than X!

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[6]: Big deal...
by ichi on Sat 26th Jun 2010 19:01 in reply to "RE[5]: Big deal..."
ichi Member since:

What does this mean? Well... that even the god damn old XP handles this thing better than X!

I was under the impression that apps crashing when X goes down was due to the toolkits and not X, since X is not actually killing anything nor stopping apps from reconnecting.

At the end of the day you are still losing your work if X crashes, but the blame is not on the usual suspect.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Big deal...
by Zifre on Sat 26th Jun 2010 19:04 in reply to "RE[5]: Big deal..."
Zifre Member since:

What does this mean? Well... that even the god damn old XP handles this thing better than X!

Why do people keep saying this? X handles it fine. It's Gtk+ and Qt that are too lazy to implement it properly.

A good way to understand it is to look at how Wayland works. Pretty much all clients do is get events from the server, and give handles to kernel-managed buffers containing the window contents to the server. This means that a client would not even have to know if the server crashed. A new server could just take over on the same socket, and everything would be fine.

The same method is possible with X, it's just that X makes it a lot easier to design your toolkit in such a way that this is not possible... (like how Gtk+ and Qt do it now)

Reply Parent Score: 3