On 06/12/2013 02:59 PM, Cory Smelosky wrote:
On the contrary. The design of X is very clean. (yes, I've been "all
up in there".) There are some things about its innards that I do not
like, but overall, it's extremely well-done.
Ohhh. We're talking protocol design and that stuff. Yes, THAT is
clean. I've just had experience with very bad implementations I guess.
Like the one I'm currently running that likes to use 100% CPU doing
nothing for no reason. This wouldn't happen on a properly-implemented
workstation I would admit. However on a PeeCee where politics is more
important than doing things well...issues arise.
Well XFree86 (which is what I assume you're talking about), while
amazing in some ways, is a real piece of crap in others.
I'm still a fan of NeWS myself. ;)
It was a neat idea.
The fact that we're still using it three decades later on completely,
totally different hardware, in completely different ways, tells a lot.
That does say a lot. I'd still argue that the implementations still
need work though.
I will not disagree with that.
Some parts of how we're using it now, though (like client-side font
rendering) are extremely kludgy. But that's not the fault of X.
I'd agree. I didn't know we were discussing the protocol. ;)
Well you said "X", which is a protocol, not a piece of software.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA